
Pass ^y/t/^ ^ 
Book /Td f/c) . 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832 BETWEEN 
THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA 



HEARING 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 



OF THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1911 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

[Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone '230. Meets on call.] 

1. William. Sulzer, Chairman, of New York. 12. Charles M. StedmaN; of North Carolina. 

2. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia. 13. Edward W. Townsend, of New Jersey. 

3. John N. Garner, of Texas. 14. B. P. Harrison, of Mississippi. 
i. George S. Legare, of South Carolina, 15. David J. Foster, of Vermont. 

.5. William G. Sharp, of Ohio. 16. William B. McKxnley, of Illinois. 

6. Cyrus Cline, of Indiana. 17. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin. 

7. Jefferson M. Levy, of New York. 18. Ira W. Wood, of New Jersey. 

8. James M. Curley, of Massachusetts. 19. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri. 

9. John Charles Linthicum, of Maryland. 20. George W. Faiechild, of New York. 

10. Robert E. Difenderfer, of Pennsylvania. 21. N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 

11. W. S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. 



smf 



[Revised edition.] 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1911 




f 



i t /, 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832 BETWEEN 
THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA 

HEARING 

.. BEFORE THE _,,.,«»«-^. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1911 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

[Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone 230. Meets on call.} 

1. William Stjlzee, Chairman, of New York . 12. Charles M. Stedman, of North Carolina, 

2. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia. 13. Edward W. Townsend, of New Jersey. 

3. John N. Garner, of Texas. 14. B. P. Harrison, of Mississippi. 

4. George S. Legare, of South Carolina. 15. David J. Poster, of Vermont. 

6. William G. Sharp, of Ohio. 16. William B. McKinley, of Illinois. 

6. Cyrcs Cline, of Indiana. 17. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin. 

7. Jefferson M. Levy, of New York. 18. Ira W. Wood, of New Jersey. 

8. James M. Cxjrley, of Massachusetts. 19. Richard Baetholdt, of Missouri. 

9. John Charles Linthicum, of Maryland. 20. George W. Faiechild, of New York. 

10. Robert E. Difenderfer, of Pennsylvania. 21. N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 

11. W. S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. 



[Revised edition.] 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1911 






[H. Res. 345, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] 

Congress of the United States, 

In the House of Representatives, 

December ^i, 1911. 

Resolved., That there be printed for the use of the Members of the 
House of Representatives five thousand five hundred copies of the hear- 
ings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs on House joint resolu- 
tion 166, providing for the termination of the treaty of eighteen 
hundred and thirt,y-two between the United States and Russia. 

Estimated cost, $500. 

Attest: South Trimble, Glerk. 



i 



CONTENTS. 



Page 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 1 

House joint resolution 166 3 

Statement of William G. McAdoo 3 

Speakers at mass meeting, New York, December 6, 1911 4 

Proceedings of mass meeting, New York, December 6, 1911 5-31 

Resolutions of mass meeting, New York, December 6, 1911 5 

Address of — 

Chairman William G. McAdoo 6 

President, Hon. Andrew D. White 7 

United States Senator James A. O'Gorman 12 

Hon. William Randolph Hearst 13 

Bishop David H. Greer 14 

Gov. Woodrow Wilson 15 

Speaker Champ Clark _ - 16 

Dr. Jacob Gould Schurman 17 

Representative N. E. Kendall 21 

Representative William Sulzer 24 

Hon. Herbert Parsons 24 

Representative William G. Sharp 24 

Representative Francis Burton Harrison 26 

Hon. William S. Bennet 27 

Representative William M. Calder 27 

Representative Henry M. Goldfogle 27 

Letter of Gov. Judson Harmon 30 

Telegram of — 

United States Senator Boies Penrose 30 

Representative James M. Curley 30 

Representative J. Charles Linthicum 31 

Statement of — 

Judge Mayer Sulzberger 31 

Louis Marshall, Esq 39 

Hon. Harry Cutler 51 

Mr. Leon Kamaiky 56 

Louis Marshall, Esq. (continued) 58 

Rev. Donald C. McLeod 63 

Rabbi Joseph Silverman 65 

Hon. Jacob H. Schiff 66 

Hon. Oscar S. Straus 67 

Abram I. Elkus, Esq 73 

Judge Leon Sanders . 73 

Mr. Samuel Dorf 74 

Rabbi Solomon Foster 76 

Mr. Bernard Nolan 77 

Louis Marshall, F!sq., continued 78 

Representative Henry M. Goldfogle 92 

Representative Charles B. Smith 96 

Address of — 

Rabbi J. H. Landau 97 

Mr. John T. Ryan 98 

Mr. Ellicott C. McDougal 99 

Statement of — 

Representative William P. Murray 99 

Representative Francis Burton Harrison 101 

Diplomatic correspondence respecting passport question 105 

iii 



IV CONTENTS. 

Page 

The passport question 239 

Introduction 239 

Circulars of Department of State, May 28, 1907 240 

Letter of Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach to Secretary Koot, 

February 1, 1908 241 

Letter of Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach to Secretary Root, 

February 13, 1908 242 

Letter of Judge Mayer Sulzberger to President Eoosevelt, May 18, 1908.. 243 

Reply of Secretary to the President 246 

Reply of Secretary Root 246 

Letter of Judge Sulzberger to Secretary Root „ . 246 

Letter of Judge Sulzberger to President Roosevelt 248 

Planks of party platforms, 1908 248 

Letter of Judge Sulzberger to Hon. William H. Taft, July 17, 1908 248 

Reply of Mr. Taft 249 

Statement of Mr. Taft in letter accepting presidential nomination 249 

Letter of Secretary Root to Mr. Jacob H . Schiff , October 19, 1908 249 

Extracts from speeches of Hon. William H. Taft 250 

Extract from inaugural address of President Taft 250 

Letter of Judge Sulzberger to Secretary Knox 250 

Letter of Secretary Wilson to Judge Sulzberger : 251 

Extract from agreement with Russia, June 15, 1909 251 

Letter of executive committee of American Jewish Committee to Presi- 
dent Taft, February 24, 191 252 

Reply of Secretary to the President 253 

Letter of Secretary Knox to President Taft 253 

Letters of Judge Sulzberger, Mr. Jacob H. Schiff, and Dr. Cyrus Adler, to 

President Taft, June 3, 1910 254 

Resolution of Twenty-second Council of Union of American Hebrew Con- 
gregations, Jannary 27, 1911 256 

Resolution of Representative Herbert Parsons, February 10, 1911 256 

Resolution of Representative. William Sulzer, April 6, 1911 257 

Extract from circular of Russian-America Line 258 

Extracts from Russian treaties with (xermany, Austria, and France 259 

Summary of debate in French Chamber of Deputies, December 27, 1909.. 261 

" Russia and the American Passport," by Louis Marshall, Esq 266 

Hearing before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 16, 1911.. 272 
Statement of — 

Representative Parsons 272 

Louis Marshall, Esq 279 

Representative Francis Burton Harrison 285 

Representative Henry M. Goldfogle •. 285 

Representative James M. Graham 287 

"The United States Passport and Russia," by Hon. Rufus B. Smith . 288 

Brief on termination of treaties, by Herbert Friedewald, Ph. D 295 

The passport question in Congress, 1879-1909 304 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832 BETWEEN THE UNITED 
STATES AND RUSSIA. 



. House of Representatives, 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

Monday^ December 11, 1911. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William Sulzer (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The Chairman. The hearing this morning is on the House joint 
resolution No. 166, as follows: 

joint resolution Providing for the termination of the treaty of eighteen hundred 
and thirty-two between the United States and Russia. 

Resolved 'by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the people of the United States assert as a 
fundamental principle that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home 
or abroad because of race or religion ; that the Government of the United States 
concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without 
regard to race or religion ; that the Government of the United States will not be 
a party to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties 
thereto is so construed as to discriminate, between American citizens on the 
ground of race or religion ; that the Government of Russia has violated the 
treaty between the United States and Russia, concluded at Saint Petersburg 
December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, refusing to honor Amer- 
ican passports duly issued to American citizens, on account of race and reli- 
gion ; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons 
aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; that for the 
aforesaid reasons the said treaty is hereby declared to be terminated and of no 
further force and effect from the expiration of one year after the .date of noti- 
fication to the Government of Russia of the terms of this resolution, and that 
to this end the President is hereby charged with the duty of communicating 
such notice to the Government of Russia. 

By the arrangement with the gentlemen who appear here from out 
of town and have agreed upon the list of speakers to address the 
committee, the first speaker will be Mr. McAdoo. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM G. M'ABOO, OF NEW YOIIK, PRESI- 
DENT OF THE HUDSON TUNNELS. 

Mr. McAdoo. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume much of the time 
of the committee, my purpose being simply to present to you the res- 
olutions adopted at a mass meeting of the citizens of New York on 
the evening of December 6, 1911. In doing so I should like to say 
for your information that that meeting was composed of representa- 
tives of every class of American citizens. It was not confined by 
any means to American citizens of the Jewish faith. That ^reat 
auditorium was packed from pit to dome by an unusually intelligent 
and discriminating audience, one which was intensely in earnest, 

3 



4 TERMINATION^ OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

and the action taken on that occasion, we are confident, we may say, 
represents accurately the feeling of the American people on this 
subject. 

Those resolutions, which are embodied in this printed pamphlet, 
I beg to submit to the committee. In this pamphlet is also included 
the sjDeeches made on that occasion by some of the men who have dis- 
tinguished themselves in American life. Among them were Presi- 
dent Andrew D. White, United States Senator James A. O'Gorman, 
Hon. William R. Hearst, Bishop David H. Greer, Gov. Woodrow 
Wilson, Speaker Champ Clark, President Jacob Gould Schurman; 
Congressman N. E. Kendall, of Iowa ; Congressman William Sulzer, 
Congressman Herbert Parsons, of New York ; Congressman William 
G. Sharp, of Ohio; ^Congressman Francis Burton Harrison, of New 
York ; Hon. William S. Bennet, Congressman William M. Calder, of 
New York; and Congressman Henry M. Goldfogle, of New York. ' 

The question presented for your consideration is one with. which 
you are so familiar that it scarcely needs presentation on my part. 
For 40 years Russia has disregarded, as we think, the plain stipula- 
tions of this treaty. She has undertaken to apply a rigid test to 
American citizens seeking to enter Russia. 

We do not believe that this Government can afford to submit to 
any such test as applied to any part of its citizens. We believe that 
every American citizen, whatever his antecedents, is entitled to the 
benefits of a treaty made for every American citizen and every class 
of American citizenship. 

The Government of the United States has on its part strictly ob- 
served the obligations of their treaty, and Russia alone has been 
derelict in performance. 

It seems that when an American citizen presents a passport to the 
Russian consul general in New York or in any foreign capital for a 
visa he is immediately asked what is his religion. There are a few 
other questions also asked, but that seems to be the important one. 
The minute he confesses that he is a Jew the visa is refused and 
discrimination is at once made against a certain part of our citizens — 
a very large and important element of our citizens. 

Our diplomatic history is full of protests on the part of this Gov- 
ernment against this discrimination. Large efforts have been made 
to get Russia to recede from a position which is utterly and wholly 
untenable, but without success. 

The time|has now come when we believe that this committee and 
Congress should take a firm stand on this question and should insist 
that Russia either live up to the treaty or that it be abrogated. We 
do not believe that any satisfactory result is going to be accomplished 
any other way. 

There is no feeling of hostility, I believe, on the part of the Ameri- 
can people generally. We can say with confidence, I think, that 
there is no feeling of hostility, generally, against Russia. 

This movement is not conceived or pushed in any unfriendly spirit 
to any nation. Our particular ground is that this Nation can not 
afford to have treaties with any nation that does not recognize the 
rights of American citizens. We can not afford to have treaties and 
maintain them with any power that does not concede at once that 
every American citizen, whatever his race or creed, is entitled to 
the full benefit and full protection of all treaties. 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 5 

The constitutional questions involved and the legal aspects of the 
case and the interpretation of the treaty I will leave to some other 
gentleman who is more familiar with the subject than I am. 

Mr. Garner. What powers has Congress in reference to the abro- 
gation of this treaty ? 

Mr. McAdoo. I understand that it has every power. It has the 
right to abrogate the treaty upon 12 months' notice. 

Mr. Garner. Has Congress that right, or the President? What 
are our powers and what are our duties in the premises ? 

Mr. McAdoo. I have my own views, but I prefer to let Mr. Mar- 
shall, who has made a profound study of this question, answer that 
inquiry when he speaks, as he Avill do. We have left that part of 
the argument to Mr. Marshall, because he has familiarized himself 
with the question fully. 

I beg to submit the resolution adopted at the mass meeting in New 
York, to be made a part of your proceedings. 

The Chairman. Without objection, that may go in. 

(The proceedings of the mass meeting referred to are as follows:) 

RUSSIA AND THE AMERICAN PASSPORT. 

[Report of the proceedings of the mass meetuig held at Carnegie Hall, New York City, 
Wednesday evening, Dec. 6, 1911, under the auspices of the National Citizens Com- 
mittee, 30 Church Street, New York City.] 

The following resolutions were read by James Creelman, Esq., and unani- 
mously adopted by the mass meeting held at Carnegie Hall, Wednesday evening, 
December 6, 1911 : 

" Since the establishment of the Government of the United States all of its 
citizens, whether native born or naturalized, irrespective of race or creed, have 
been uniformly recognized as entitled, under the Constitution, to equal rights, 
privileges, and immimities, to freedom from all discrimination, and to absolute 
txemption from the imposition of any religous test. 

" The deprivation of any part of our citizens of any of these guarantees, the 
withholding from the lowliest of them of any of the rights accorded to the 
most distinguished, or the division of our citizenship into classes, is so opposed 
to the spirit of our institutions as to be unthinkable. And yet, what can not 
be accomplished directly by the Government has for more than 30 years 
been effectuated with respect to our citizens by the Government of Russia, 
which, in the face of the continued protest of our State Department, has 
deliberately disregarded passports issued under our Great Seal to American 
citizens who happen to be Jews, Roman Catholics, and Protestant missionaries, 
solely because of their faith.- 

" This has, with singular unanimity, been declared by our statesmen, jurists, 
and legislators to constitute a defiant violation of the treaty made between 
the two great Governments in 1832. 

" For 30 years all efforts of diplomacy to remedy this wrong, to obviate this 
affront to our national honor, to procure for all our citizens their stipulated 
rights, have been in vain. The Republican and Democratic parties alike have 
for years demanded in their platforms, a cessation of this abuse, and both 
have promised prompt action for the vindication of the integrity of American 
citizenship. Nevertheless, a considerable portion of our citizens continue to 
suffer from the civil disabilities created by Russia's breach of her treaty 
obligations. 

" Our Government has exercised great self-restraint, and the American 
people have evinced extreme patience in the hope that Russia might be induced, 
by representation and argument, to respect the terms of her compact. Relief, 
however, seems to-day as remote as when it was first desired. Believing, there- 
fore, that the time has at length arrived when all other considerations must 
yield to the sacred rights of American citizenship, and the preservation of our 
cherished institutions, it is 

"Resolved, That this meeting, called by representatives from every part of 
the Union, and reflecting every shade of public opinion, urgently request the 



6 TERMIISrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Congress of the United States at its present session to adopt the resolutions 
now pending in the Senate and House of Representatives, looking to the 
abrogation of the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia, by 
giving one year's notice of its termination, pursuant to its expressed pro- 
vision, to the end that our country, at least, shall no longer behold with 
equanimity, a classification of its citizens, which, if ripened into a precedent, 
would eventually undermine that political system which has made it the 
greatest moral power of the earth. Be it further 

"Resolved, That the National Citizens Committee be continued until the end 
for which it was organized has been accomplished." 

The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Rev. John Dixon, secretary 
of the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions. 

Address of Chaibman William G. McAdoo. 

Ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks ago an eminent American citizen, a 
man of exalted character, an archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, left 
these shores for Rome. He needed no passport to enter Italy. But suppose 
that he had been going to Russia, do you know what would have happened 
to him? 

He would first have made an application to the Secretary of State at Wash- 
ington for a passport, and in it he would have been obliged to state his age and 
height, the type of his forehead, the color of his hair and eyes, the size of his 
mouth and certain facial characteristics; but nowhere does our Government 
ask his color, his race, or his creed. 

The Secretary of State would have sent him a passport, saying : " I, the 
undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States of America, hereby re- 
quest all whom it may concern to permit , a citizen of the United States, 

safely and freely to pass, and in case of need to give him all lawful aid and 
protection." 

The great seal of our country afiixed to that passport is represented by an 
American eagle holding in one outstretched talon an olive branch, denoting 
peace and friendship, and in the other a quiver of arrows, denoting majesty 
and power and implying tnat every resource of the Nation will be employed for 
the protection of the citizen who holds and rightfully uses that passport. 

You would suppose that all the archbishop would now have to do would be 
to take the steamer for Russia ; but, no. He must request the Russian con- 
sul general in New York to vise that passport. 

The Russian consul general will ask what is his religion and occupation. 
The moment he confesses that he is a Catholic prelate, vise is refused, and 
the archbishop is denied admission to Russia. If the passport be presented by 
a Jewish-American citizen, however eminent, the result will be the same. 

By one stroke of his pen, or with one monosyllabic word, a subordinate Rus- 
sian official on American soil makes the great seal of the United States as 
meaningless as a piece of blank paper and annuls an express provision of the 
treaty between the two countries, made as far back as 1832, which declares: 

" The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty to 
enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party wherever 
foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside 
in all parts whatsoever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs, 
and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives 
of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws 
and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force 
concerning commerce." 

Nowhere does it say that Russia may exclude from its benefits certain classes 
of American citizens. Nowhere does it say that Russia may tell an American 
citizen with an American passport that he can not enter Russia because that 
American citizen happens to be a Jew or a Catholic priest or a missionary. 
Nowhere does that treaty give the United States Government the right to prac- 
tice similar discriminations against Russian citizens. Russia is under the most 
solemn compact, because a treaty is the supreme law of the land, to accord to 
every American citizen, without regard to creed or race, who bears an Ameri- 
can passport the right to " sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever " of 
Russian territory, on condition only of " submitting to the laws and ordinances 
there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning 
commerce." 



TERMINATION" OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 7 

Sojourn and residence can only be accomplished by entry upon Russian soil, 
and yet Russia denies to a large part of American citizens the right to even 
cross the frontier. We do not seem to interfere with Russia's internal admin- 
istration, but we do insist upon the right of every American citizen to enter 
Russia for the purposes of the treaty. 

For 30 years Russia observed the treaty and admitted all American citizens 
to Russian soil. For 40 years she has violated the treaty by refusing to admit 
certain American citizens to Russian soil. From the date of the treaty our 
Government has, on the other hand, scrupulously observed every one of its 
obligations. 

The question now presented is. Shall Russia be longer permitted to say what 
part or what class of American citizens shall enjoy the benefits of a treaty that 
was made for every part and all classes of American citizens? Or, to put it 
another way, shall Russia be longer permitted to discriminate against any 
part or any class of American citizens because of race or creed — to make dis- 
tinctions between American citizens which our Constitution and our laws for- 
bid, and which are opposed to the essential and fundamental principles of our 
Government? 

The astonishing thing is that our Government has for 40 years submitted to 
a plain violation of that treaty. Our diplomatic history seems full of protest, 
but they have lacked the impelling force of determination, and nothing has 
been accomplished. 

This is emphatically not a racial or religious question. While the discrimi- 
nation affects certain classes only of our citizens, it strikes at the integrity oi 
American citizenship as a whole and impairs the prestige while it affronts the 
dignity of our Government. 

The Remedy is not war with Russia. The treaty itself provides a peaceful 
solution. We have the right, upon 12 months' notice, to abrogate the treaty. 
Should we not give that notice immediately? 

The objection has been raised that a termination of the treaty may injure 
our trade with Russia. Even should this prove true, greater issues — human 
rights and the equality of A.merican citizenship — are at stake. 

To suggest that commercial considerations are paramount to human rights is 
to exalt " dollar diplomacy." We have had enough of that. What we want is a 
return to that glorious diplomacy which prompted the spirited and immortal 
reply of Ambassador Pinckney to the French Government in 1796, " Millions for 
defense, but not one cent for tribute." We must not, as the price of Russia's 
violation of the treaty, deprive millions of American citizens of their rights and 
stamp them with the opprobrium of inferiority. Every citizen of this country is 
now and must forever be equal. More than 100 years ago our forefathers estab- 
lished this vital principle, and for its maintenance commerce and " dollar 
diplomacy " must be subordinated. 

Let us temperately, firmly, unflinchingly, make the world understand that 
every American citizen, duly accredited, is a vitalized American flag, and that 
wherever the flag goes, every citizen may go with equal security and protection. 

This great meeting has assembled to tell the authorities at Washington that the 
time has come when the American people demand definite action ; the protec- 
tion of every American citizen, whatever his race or creed ; the enforcement of 
every treaty obligation and the vindication of the dignity and prestige of the 
American Government. 

Address of Hon. Andrew D. White, former ambassador to Russia, president 

OF THE NATIONAI. CiTIZENS' COMMITTEE. 

Gentlemen of the National Citizens' Committee and fellow citizens, I have 
long believed that this day must come and rejoice that I have lived to see it. 
My hope is that it will prove the dawning day of a great act of international 
justice. 

At two different periods, extending somewhat over three years in all, I have 
resided at the Russian capital, first in the years 1854 and 1855, and last during 
the years 1892, 1893, and 1894. I have had occasion to observe the -growth of 
a system in that country which has Inflicted, and continues to inflict, upon the 
United States not only injustice but dishonor. 

By the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia equal rights were 
guaranteed fully and explicitly to all Russian subjects by the United States 
and to all American citizens by Russia, without distinction of race or religion, 
yet for nearly half a century this solemn guaranty has been violated by Russia 



8 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

constantly, and, indeed, I think I may say without exaggeration, contemptu- 
ously. Jews and Christians have both suffered from this ; it has borne at times 
as severely, though never so frequently, upon American and Christian ministers 
as upon Jews in general. 

It had, indeed, been contended by Russia that the treaty was made subject 
to certain laws of the Empire then prevailing, so that its most precious guaran- 
ties, including those of equal rights, were thereby from the beginning neces- 
sarily rendered futile. 

This contention I have never believed, nor do I think any thoughtful person 
has ever believed it. The treaty was made by the Emperor Nicholas I and by 
James Buchanan, the American minister, and no men e^er knew better than 
they what they wanted and what at any given moment they intended to do. 
Nicholas had sat upon the throne of Russia at that time for seven years ; he 
was recognized throughout the world as the most autocratic monarch in Chris- 
tendom. In pride no other modern sovereign ever surpassed him, not even 
Louis XIV, or Napoleon; he was especially sensitive to the acclaim of the 
world; never would he have r.llowed such a treaty to be spoken of in his pres- 
ence if it had been in the slightest degree at variance with the law of his 
Empire. It is certain, also, that if any such Russian lav/s existed uallifying the 
treaty when it was made he knew it, and in case he knew it he had ample 
power as the source and center of all authority in the Empire, executive, legisla- 
tive, and judicial, to waive, or even to abolish it. The fact of his signing a 
treaty so comprehensive and explicit was proof that he had abolished all laws 
to the contrary. 

James Buchanan, the American minister in St. Petersburg at that time, 
was then at the height of his intellectual vigor ; in the full possession of 
those faculties which afterwards made him a Senator in Congress, Secretary 
of State, minister to Great Britain, and President of the United States. No 
one of Ills leading contemporaries in American politics was more noted for 
thorough knowledge of political subjects, and above all, for astuteness. If 
the treaty was futile from the beginning he knew it and yet sanctioned it, and 
took his place before the v/orld as its advocate. All that is unthinkable. 

The present misinterpretation of the treaty and misuse of it, making that 
an instrument of oppression which was intended to be a blessing, was, in my 
opinion, developed many years after it was signed. Our country regards it as 
a burden and disgrace to us. The question which the American people are now 
to meet is simply this: "What are we going to do about it?" 

Just two courses are presented to us — courses either of both of which we 
are free to take. Perhaps we can accomplish our wish in one of these ways. 
If it requires two ways, what is the proper order of them — which way should 
we take first? And in discussing this question briefly, I wish to appeal neither 
to your passions nor to your resentments. My appeal shall be, as far as I 
can make it, to your patriotism and to your plain common sense. I do not 
mean at all by this to put forward the pecuniary bearings of the matter — that 
I leave as the very last and least question to be considered. The question I 
ask is : " How shall we preserve the proper dignity of our country, our sense 
of pride in it, the rights involved in it, find, as involved in it, the integrity of 
the American passport as it goes forth from Washington and enters Russia, 
bearing the signature of the American Secretary of State, representing not 
only our President, but our entire people? " 

Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, who in his day was not only the 
greatest warrior but one of the wisest statesmen the modern world has seen, 
once criticized the other great monarch of his time, Emperor Joseph II, who 
■devoted his life to urging reforms throughout his Empire, which proved gen- 
erally failures. Said wise, old King Frederick : " Joseph means well, but he 
always takes the second step before he takes the first." 

In my opinion, everything in this case depends on whether we start with the 
first step or with the second. If the first step is taken first I have faith that 
it will lead to a great triumph of right, reason, and justice, with vast bless- 
ings not only to our own country, but to Russia. 

You will observe that I say nothing of any third way; yet a third way has 
been suggested occasionally by men naturally excited over the wrong done us 
in this matter — namely, war. The reasons why I do not suggest this are 
many, and, first and simplest of all, because, if we were so foolish as to try 
war, the two nations can not reach each other at any vulnerable point; it 
would be like an elephant trying to fight a whale. 



TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 9 

King Heury IV, making a progress througli France, arrived one day at the 
gates of a great city, and to his surprise found there to welcome him, not the 
mayor of the town, but simply the mayor's substitute. This substitute 
city functionary addressed the King as follows : " May it please your majesty, 
there are 10 reasons why his honor the mayor can not meet your majesty 
on this auspicious occasion. The first reason is that the mayor is dead." At 
this the King graciously assured the mayor's substitute that he would dispense 
with the other nine reasons. 

In this case there are 50 reasons why Russia and America can not go to 
war with each other. The first is their relative geographic situation — the other 
49 we can dispense with. 

My own recollections of Russia go back to the time of the Crimean war, 
when I saw the allied British and French fleets, the largest which at that time 
had ever been brought together in human history — over 100 great ships, three 
and four deckers — looming high over our heads, extending across the Gulf of 
Finland in front of the Russian fortress at Kronstadt, the northern Watergate 
to the Russian capital. Although the British admiral at that time, during a 
great public dinner before he left England, had invited his entertainers to dine 
with him at St. Petersburg, he never himself had even the pleasure of seeing 
that capital. 

It may be said that I forget to state that the allies did overcome Russia in 
the Crimea, but it must be remembered that they had the aid of the combined 
armies of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Turkey, and back of these the cer- 
tainty of an additional army from Austria hard by, if wanted, and all these 
had what we never can have— access to Russia by land. 

The two practicable steps remain, and I will confine myself to them on this 
occasion. 

The first step which we must frequently hear proposed is that of an im- 
mediate official abrogation of the Buchanan treaty. The opinion is natural, 
no one can blame it, it merits respect, it has been urged in the public press 
and in Congress and by many of our most eloquent and prominent writers 
aud speakers. Bills to accomplish this abrogation of the treaty have already 
been brought into our National Legislature. No doubt they represent real 
patriotism. All honor to their advocates ! I freely allow that it may be neces- 
sary to take this step at some later stage in our effort. 

But is it certain that this is the step to take first? Is there not the possi- 
bility that King Frederick's remark on Emporer Joseph's reforms might prove 
true of ourselves? May we not be in danger of taking as a first step that which 
ought to be taken as a second? May it not happen that should we abrogate 
the Buchanan treaty Russia would say, " Well, let them go ; we can live with- 
out a treaty as long as they can. We can worry them as much and as long as 
they can worry us, and at any rate we shall hear no more of the question of 
Jewish rights or of the 'rights of Protestants, of Catholic American clergymen, 
or, indeed, of American rights, now that no one has any pretext for flinging 
them into our faces." 

Might they not even congratulate themselves upon the financial side of the 
question? Might not the pill be sweetened for them by the belief, which I 
observe is shared by a thoughtful American jurist, that all inheritances from 
Jewish families in Russia to Jewish heirs in America would lapse into the Im- 
perial Treasury? 

Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, Russia is a proud nation, as proud a nation 
as our own. I am not saying that she has as much reason to be proud as we. 
Every man must judge for himself as to that. I will only say that there are 
some things done in our coxmtry of which I am. not especially proud — no doubt 
Russia is aware of some of them. An attempt at peremptory demands upon 
her will, in my opinion, lead to exactly that state of mind which pei'emptory 
demands always arouse in any proud individual. As a rule, such demands at 
once dismiss right-reason from the case and lead to indignant rejoinders and 
reprisals, regardless of all justice. 

May it not be better for all concerned that we hold the abrogation of the 
treaty, for at least a short time, in reserve? May we not find it far better to 
take this as a second step than as a first step? 

At the organization of Cornell University an old friend of mine — a man 
eminently sound and sane — said to me : " I hear that you are hunting for pro- 
fessors. I don't know much of art, science, or literature, but if you ever estab- 
lish a professorship of horse sense, I am a candidate for it." By all means in 



10 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

the present matter let us consult first our good sense rather than our Indig- 
nation. 

I repeat: Russia is, as a matter of fact, one of the proudest countries on 
earth. She wishes to be well thought of by the whole world, and it is this wish 
on her part that I would enlist in the service of peace with honor. Russia is 
always taking great pains to secure the world's respect and good opinion. 
Shortly before my first stay in Russia she evidently wished to seem to lead in 
science, and to that end she built one of the most costly observatories in the 
world, even though, when I visited it, she had none but German astronomers 
to manage it. Later she wished to be thought great in art, and she had to tol- 
erate the fact — though her press sometimes scolded about it — that the greatest 
sculptor by far in the whole Empire was a Jew — Autokolski. She has had, 
indeed, some great writers. One of these I knew — Lyof Tolstoy. It was once 
my privilege during 10 successive mornings and evenings to walk and talk and 
sit in discussion with Tolstoy at Moscow, and on one of these occasions he said 
to me : " I wake every morning surprised that I do not find myself on the road 
to Siberia." I answered him : " There is no danger of that ; the Russian Gov- 
ernment is too wise for that — it cares too much for the public opinion of the 
world." 

Russia has had some men famous in the annals of science. She has some 
now, but she does not, as Germany does, show any especial love for them. But 
at the same time she is vastly proud to exhibit them to the world, as well she 
may be. 

Nicholas I at times braved public opinion in ways monstrously autocratic, 
but it was this same Russian sensitiveness to public opinion which led him to 
prepare for the emancipation of the 40,000,000 serfs, and it was this same awe 
of the world's opinion which led his son, Alexander II, not only to carry out 
vast reforms, but to introduce trial by jury and to prepare the way for other 
great reforms which were stopped, probably for a century, by the idiots who 
assassinated him. 

The world is full of good people who wish to cut down the tree if it does not 
yield fruit the day it is planted. 

May it not be better for us,. as our poet sings, that we " learn to labor and to 
wait," for a time at least, until we find what we can do in that way? 

Russia's desire for the good opinion of the world entered very largely into the 
reasons why The Hague conference was called in the name of the Czar. There 
is nothing of which all Russians who do any thinking are more proud of than 
this fact. They are reluctant to allow that Czar Nicholas II derived his ideas 
which led to his calling the conference mainly, if not entirely, from the Jew, 
Jean de Bloch. During our talks at The Hague conference Jean de Bloch 
always pooh-poohed to me any such statement, but there is no doubt in the mind 
of any man cognizant of all the circumstances that de Bloch's ideas were filtered 
from his great octavos, through the newspapers, into the imperial mind. 

May it not be that this same Russian pride which is and always has been 
so constant a factor in the development of her civilization will lead her to 
accept an invitation from us to meet before The Hague tribunal? She is very 
proud of having helped to create it, and when the facts in the case are fully 
brought out before it and exhibited to that great tribunal of humanity, before 
which Thomas JefCerson displayed the wrongs of our thirteen colonies, as in- 
corporated in the Declaration of Independence — that tribunal which JefCerson 
called " a candid world " — when Russia has to face the question of whether or 
not she will meet the United States before that Hague world tribunal on this 
question, and then to face the further qiiestion as to whether she will do justice 
instead of injustice, which she has been doing during a period of over 40 
years — injustice of which the facts are absolute and indisputable — may it not 
be that Russia will then desire to show the world that she proposes to array 
herself beside the powers which adhere to their treaties? 

Will her pride. allow her to refuse to appear before that tribunal which she 
claims to have founded? And if she consents to appear, will her Russian pride 
allow her to take her place, deliberately, among barbarians? I am not re- 
proaching her ; I utter no taunt. We, ourselves, as a nation were rightly 
classed as barbarians until Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation procla- 
mation. 

There are some strong men in Russia who can see and feel the eternal dis- 
grace which the continued violation of the Buchanan treaty and the spurning 
of the tribunal in which she glories as her gift to the world would be sure to 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 11 

bring upon her. I have known such Russians. Typical of such was Admiral 
Maffaroff, great as a naval warrior, great as a scientist, great as a patriot, 
great as a man, whom I came to know and admire, not only at St. Petersburg, 
but at Washington, one of the noblest of men, an admiral of the Russian fleet, 
who gave up his life in his flagship in the attempt to redeem the honor of 
Russia during the late Japanese war. No man more devoted to the true glory of 
his country ever lived. 

There are other great Russians now living. One of these I have known, Serge 
De Witte. He it was who, as Russian minister of finance during the adminis- 
tration of President Cleveland — seeing our Government, as he thought, in need of 
gold as a basis for its currency, tendered to us millions upon millions of gold — 
largely in American eagles, on terms eminently fair and reasonable. He it was 
who saved Russia from humiliation and rendered her such splendid services at 
the treaty of Portsmouth. These men that I have mentioned are great Rus- 
sians, and the breed is not exhausted. Others may well arise worthy to be 
classed with them. Let me give one more fact pertinent to this occasion about 
De Witte. During my latest stay in Russia, in the year 1893, if I remember 
rightly, I found on my return from Germany one day that an honored Jewish 
rabbi of Philadelphia had, during my absence, applied by cable for admission 
to the Russian Empire. His wish was, and he made no secret of it, that he 
might study the condition of his co-religionists throughout that Empire. I 
also found that before my arrival the secretary in charge of the embassy during 
my absence had laid the rabbi's request before the Russian foreign office and 
had received a refusal, which had already been telegraphed to the Secretary of 
State and to the rabbi. I at once visited the foreign office, explained the case 
to the cabinet minister, showing what a mistake it was on their part to reject 
so eminent an American citizen. I also mentioned the case to De Witte. In 
about two weeks, if I remember rightly, the rabbi, Dr. Krauskopf, of Philadel- 
phia, arrived at our legation by way of Finland. I never knew how he got in. 
Judging from his account, he found no need of a passport. I only know that 
through some apparently occult influence he arrived without trouble. On think- 
ing the matter over I decided to take Dr. Krauskopf immediately, not to any 
cabinet minister who would probably be merely a functionary and nothing more, 
but to a man who "did things," a cabinet minister who was a man, fully occu- 
pied, not in keeping place and acquiring pelf, but really devoted to the honor of 
his country. I took the rabbi to Serge De Witte. When we arrived at De 
Witte's official residence we found the anterooms of his office thronged with 
generals and other personages of high degree, but all were put aside. We were 
admitted at once. De Witte gave Dr. Krauskopf precedence to them all, and 
also gave him all the time the rabbi wished for discussing the matters the 
rabbi had at heart. Thenceforth Dr. Krauskopf was apparently persona grata 
throughout the Empire, especially in the cities of Moscow and Kieft", even though 
Kieff was at fhat time ruled with a rod of iron by one of the most fanatical of 
Jew haters in existence. Gen. Ignatieff. Dr. Krauskopf was allowed to see the 
people he wished to see, to ask the questions he wished to ask, and finally to 
return to St. Petersburg and to America when he pleased and as he pleased. 

I never had any doubt that it was a noble form of patriotism in Serge De 
Witte that smoothed the way for the rabbi. 

You see, gentlemen, that there are men in Russia who are likely to prize 
right, reason, justice, and care for Russia's fair fame before the world at The 
Hague tribunal. 

Thanks to the two Hague conferences, that tribunal is now f nlly established ; 
its judges virtually chosen; its accessories provided for by a bureau of affairs 
composed of the resident diplomatic agents of all nations at The Hague and 
presided over by the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs. It is housed in 
a most beautiful and appropriate palace of justice — the world's courthouse— 
now approaching completion, the gift, I am proud to say, of an honored 
American citizen. 

My hope is, then, that if Russia be courteously summoned as a sister nation 
to meet the United States before that august tribunal in the land of Grotius and 
William of Orange — summoned in the presence of the whole world, and not 
only courteously, but solemnly — Russia will appear, and my hope is that hav- 
ing appeared and the facts having been fully exhibited to the full view of man- 
kind in the broad light of truth, right, reason, and justice, Russia may show the 
whole world a triumph of the better and greater qualities of the Russian people 
over outworn prejudice. 



12 TERMINATION" OF THE TEEATY OE 1832. 

Until such an opportunity is given for such a meeting of the nations, I hesi- 
tate to propose any other step. If Russia accepts the proposal which I suggest, 
I should hope that she would send delegates animated by the spirit of Makaroff 
and De Witte, and they will either make this treaty good or give us another 
still better, which she will be proud to lay before the whole world as evidence 
of her determination to do justice to all American citizens. 

We have, fortunately, as the American representative at St. Petersburg at 
this time, to aid in presenting the preliminary resolution, a man eminent for 
his acquaintance with public affairs, for high and loyal character, for ability 
In negotiation, for power to maintain good relations with the nation to which 
he is accredited, former Gov. Guild, of Massachusetts ; and my hope is that 
this fact also will be a favorable element in the case. 

Of course, we should keep in sight the fact that the present dishonor to our 
country can not continue — that the integrity of the American passport must 
be restored. 

If such a great opportunity in the history of the world shall be refused by 
Russia then, but not before then, let the Buchanan treaty be abrogated. 

I have more than once sustained an argument to prove that the American 
people, while more devoted to what is called " practical " — that is, to put it 
plainly, to the love of the dollar and to the struggle for it — than any other 
people, are at the same time really the most idealistic of all nations. Much 
as the people of our country love the dollar there are other things which they 
love and worship vastly more. 

During the Civil War when all was dark, when the Nation seemed almost at 
its last gasp, the Union hopelessly broken, a plain, stalwart American citizen 
who had devoted himself to business and acquired a large fortune — a man 
whom I had never before suspected of any idealism, or of any other thought 
than those on business — said to me : " I am putting all I am worth into the 
bonds of the United States. I am told that they will be repudiated; that the 
currency based upon them is worth nothing; that this country is bankrupt, 
and I confess that at times it looks so to me." Then, raising himself up to his 
full height, he turned and said : " By the Eternal, if I am not to have any 
country I don't want any money." That was the spirit of the plain American 
people then, and I believe that same spirit exists to-day. During the American 
Civil War the American people sacrificed, when all is accounted for. North and 
South, fully ten thousand millions and the lives of nearly a million men, and 
those of the best they had, and they sacrificed all these for an idea — for a 
Union freed from slavery. 

If after trying arbitration it shall be found useless, then let us denounce and 
abrogate the treaty. There would be large pecuniary loss, but I believe that 
all Americans worthy of the name would prefer this to the continuance of a 
treaty which involves American dishonor. 

There would have to be adopted a modus vivendi, so that the two great na- 
tions could live together without perpetual reprisals on each other, but it would 
be a woeful exhibition of human folly. 

Yet if it must be, let it come. Let not the question of a mere addition or 
diminution of profitable trade or manufacture prevent maintenance in some 
fully efi'ective shape of the guarantee which Russia gave us, in which the honor 
of this Nation is concerned. It must and shall be maintained, but let that be 
a consideration reserved^let it be reserved — let it not be threatened as a 
preliminary. 

I plead, then, as our first step, for a recourse to The Hague tribunal in 
order that we may avail ourselves of Russian pride in standing before the 
world in favor of right, reason, and justice. Should we fail we can then 
truthfully say that all that men could do we have done, and that we have 
merited success, even if we have not obtained it ; and thus, in the words of 
Abraham Lincoln when he signed his great appeal to the world for justice, 
we may commend our cause " to the considerate judgment of mankind and the 
gracious favor of Almighty God." 

Address of United States Senator James A. O' Gorman. 

When the Colonies triumphed over a hateful oppression and achieved their 
independence as separate States, they established a Government which recog- 
nized the equality of all men before the law, and guaranteed the absolute 
freedom of every form of religious worship. With these principles embedded in 
the Constitution the fathers of the Republic made a stride in human progress 



TERMIN-ATIOK" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 13 

never before attempted by any people in any land in any period of recorded 
history. For the first time in 15 centuries the church and state, religion and 
government, were severed. The country knew neither monarch nor subject, 
king nor prince, lord nor peasant. We were a Nation of free men, recognizing 
no sovereignty but the will of the American people. The birth of the Republic 
was the dawn of a new era of hope for millions who suffered from oppression 
and persecution in the old lands. They loved liberty and sought our shores, and 
we gave them an asylum. They became part of our citizenship, and in every 
decade of our national life they and their posterity have contributed their share 
of effort and devotion to the growth, development, and prosperity of the Nation. 
If we would maintain the national honor and remain Joyal to the tradition of 
the fathers, we must adhere to those fundamental principles upon which we 
have reared this mighty fabric of government. We must ever insist that In 
the composite citizenship of the Republic there can be no distinction of creed, 
and that the rights and privileges of Americfui citizens cm not bo irapaired at 
home or abroad because of religious belief. Our treaties are made for the benefit 
of all the people of tbe United States. Under the Federal Constitution they 
become the supreme law of the land and take precedence of State constitutions 
and statutes. 3?eing the supreme law of the land, all citizens must yield 
obedience to their provisions ; and yet the present treaty as construed by Russia 
excludes from its protection 2,000,000 of our citizens solely because of their 
religious belief. 

For 40 years our Government has made unavailing protests against Russia's 
attitude. During all these years holders of our passports have been degraded 
and humiliated and the dignity of the Nntion has been offended. The treaty 
requires equality of treatment of all the citizens and subjects of the two nations 
and we can not without dishonor longer acquiesce in this indefensible policy 
of discrimination, which is violative of the treaty and in defiance of the laws 
and Constitution of the Republic. We do not resent this indignity to our 
aggrieved citizens because they are Jews, but because they are Americans, 
entitled to the protection of our Government against injustice and wrong every- 
where. We are not concerned wth the internal policies of other countries, but 
we must insist that the right of our citizens to immunity from discrimination 
on religious grounds must be respected by nations with which we maintain 
treaty relations. The time to end this intolerable condition has arrived. For 
myself, I am prepared to vote for the abrogation of the treaty, and to that 
end I shall support the resolution now pending in the Senate of the United 
States. 

Address of Hon. William Randolph Hearst. 

My friends : The object of this meeting, as I understand it, is merely to ask 
the Government of the United States to do its plain duty. We demand nothing 
more, and will be content with nothing less. 

The first duty of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of his 
rights and privileges both at home and abroad. The question involved in the 
rejection by Russia of the passports of American citizens is perfectly simple 
and perfectly clear. It is so clear that it requires no oratory in its discussion, 
so simple that it needs no diplomacy in its negotiation. All that is needed on 
the part of the United States is a firm determination to protect the rights of all 
of its citizens at all times, at all places, and under all circumstances. 

This determination should be proclaimed in a definite declaration and sup- 
ported by whatever action is necessary to secure universal international ac- 
ceptance of the principle involved. The principle involved is not a question of 
Judaism. It is a question of justice. It is not a question of religion. It is a 
question of right. It is not a question of politics. It is a question of patriotism. 

The insolent action of Russia does not affect one citizen or one class of 
citizens. It concerns all citizens and all classes of citizens. It is not merely 
an outrage upon the individual. It is an insult to the American Nation. 

The point at issue, plainly stated, is simply whether the seal and signature 
of the United States upon a certificate of citizenship render it valid and accept- 
able at its face value, or subject to discount in Russia or in any other country 
that chooses to depreciate it. This is a point vital to the honor and integrity 
of this Nation. It brings up the question of whether the United States is 
politically solvent, whether its guarantee is good. 

We invite the people of all parts of the world to our shores. We guarantee 
them the rights and privileges of citizenship. It is the duty, then, of our 
Government to protect these citizens and all our citizens in the rights and 



14 ' TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

privileges which it has guaranteed. Whenever our Government fails to do 
this it defaults in its duty to the citizenship. 

Here at home our political indifference permits our citizens to be bullied 
by corrupt bosses, exploited by unscrupulous politicians, and plundered by priv- 
ileged interests. Abroad, it allows our citizens to be insulted with all the 
insolence and defiance characteristic of Russian bigotry and tyranny. 

It is time to stop these insults, to end these outrages. We are entering 
upon an era of reconstruction and reform, of advancement and improvement. 
We have begun to recognize and to remedy some of our unsatisfactory con- 
ditions at home. It is now time for us to take up and remedy this particular 
harmful and humiliating condition abroad. 

I myself do not happen to be of the Jewish race, or of the Jewish faith, or 
of Jewish descent. I am speaking merely as one American citizen interested 
in the honor of his country and in the welfare of his fellow citizens. To be 
sure. I have very many good and true friends among the Jewish people, many 
friends whom I have never met and may never know, but who have been 
very kind to me and whom I cherish dearly. 

I have other intimate personal friends among the Jewish people, friends 
whom I have known long and well. These men honor my house by their 
presence, and by their presence they would honor the palace of the Czar. I 
admit a friendship for the Jewish people, a feeling of deep appreciation for all 
the political and personal courtesies which the Jewish people have extended 
to me. 

But, my friends, I solemnly declare that in this cause I am moved not so 
much by a sense of friendship as by a sense of justice, not so much by a sense 
of obligation to Jewish citizens as by a sense of patriotic duty to all the 
citizens of our Nation. 

I am speaking in the interest of all Americans — of Jewish-Americans, Ger- 
man-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans — of all the citizens of this 
great Nation, whether in the East or in the West or in the North or in the 
South. We are a united people. Let us stand as a unit behind every American 
citizen. Let us secure and preserve for him at home and abroad, near at hand 
and in the uttermost ends of the earth, every right that has been granted him, 
every privilege thnt is properly his. 

The American citizen should be like the citizen of ancient Rome. Wherever 
he goes the power of the greatest country in the world should go with him and 
stand behind him. Our country is the greatest country in the world, and it 
is the character and quality, the fidelity and devotion, of our citizens that have 
made our country great, that have made its name honored throughout the 
world. 

Whnt our citizens have done for their coimtry. our country should do for 
its citizens. If our country is the most respected, the most considered, the 
most honored of all the countries of the world, then our citizens, wherever they 
go with the passport of the United States in their hands, should be and shall 
be the most respected, the most considered, and the most honored of all the 
citizens of the world. 

In the protection of its citizens, in the maintenance of its own self-respect, 
in the defense of its own honor, let the United States assert its dignity, and, if 
necessary, employ its power. 

Address op Right Rev. David H. Greer, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
Diocese of New York City. 

This is essentially an American question. The Jews are active in the matter. 
Why not? Because they are discriminated against, and yet I maintain that it 
is not the Jews who should be chiefly interested in it, but the whole body of 
our American citizenry. Further, I claim that it is a moral question. When 
that treaty, a little more than three-quarters of a century ago, to which refer- 
ence hsis been made here to-night, was ratified, then it became, as Senator 
O'Gorman has said, according to the sixth article of our American Constitu- 
tion, the supreme law of the land ; and when that supreme law is disregarded, 
deliberately and i)ersistently, is it not lawlessness? You may say it is not we 
who are disregarrling it, but by our acquiescence in that disregard of it or dis- 
obe<lience to it, we nre contributory to th^t lawlessness, and in so doing are 
giving encouragement to that spirit of lawlessness which is so active and so 
destructively active in our modern life, and for the safety and the perpetuity of 
our modern* life, with all that it means and stands for, for all of us, and our 
modern civilization, we should lift voices and set our faces against it. 



TERMINATIOlSr OP THE TREATY OF 1832, 15 

We hear it said that perhaps there would be some loss. I do not think it; 
but be it so, there is no loss than can happen to a nation greater than the loss of 
its own distinctive principles which it believes to be right, and that I maintain 
should not be a first consideration. It was not the consideration of our forbears, 
or the forbears of some of us, who came here, as Russell Lowell says, " Seeking 
not gold, but God, and the liberty to worship Him here and serve Him here, 
each man according to the dictates of his own conscience." 

Addeess of Gov. Woodeow Wilson, of New Jersey. 

The object of this meeting is not agitation ; it is the statement of a plain case 
in such terms as may serve to arrest the attention of the Nation with regard to 
a matter which is of no mere local importance, which does not merely affect 
the rights and essential privileges of our Jewish fellow citizens as freemen and 
Americans, but which touches the dignity of our Government and the main- 
tenance of those rights of manhood which that Government was set up to 
vindicate. 

The facts are these: For some 80 years a treaty has existed between this 
country and Russia, ia which it is explicitly covenanted and agreed that the 
inhabitants of the two nations shall have the liberty of entering any part of 
the territory of either that is open to foreign commerce; that they shall be at 
liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of the territory thus 
opened to commerce in order to attend to their affairs, and that they shal) 
enjoy the same security and protection as inhabitants of the counti'y in which 
they are sojourning, on condition, of course, that they submit to the laws and 
ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations there in force 
concerning commerce. For some 40 years the obligations of this treaty have 
been disregarded by Russia in respect of our Jewish fellow citizens. Our Gov- 
ernment has protested, but has never gone beyond protest. After 40 years of 
correspondence the Russian Government naturally does not expect the mat- 
ter to be carried beyond protest to action, and so continues to act as It 
pleases in this matter, in the confidence that our Government does not seriously 
mean to include our Jewish fellow citizens among those upon whose rights it 
will insist. 

It is not necessary to conjecture the reasons. The treaty thus disregarded by 
Russia is a treaty of commerce and navigation. Its main object is trade, the 
sort of economic intercourse between the two nations that will promote the 
material interests of both. Important commercial and industrial relations have 
been established under it. Large American undertakings, we are informed, 
would be put in serious peril were those relations broken off. We must concede 
something, even at the expense of a certain number of our fellow citizens, in 
order not to risk a loss greater than the object would seem to justify. 

I, for one, do not fear any loss. The economic relations of two great nations 
are not based upon sentiment ; they are based upon interest. It is safe to say 
that in this instance they are not based upon mutual respect, for Russia can 
not respect us when she sees us for 40 years together preferring our in- 
terests to our rights. Whatever our feeling may be with regard to Russia, 
whatever our respect for her statesmen or our sympathy with the great future 
in store for her people, she would certainly be justified in acting upon the ex- 
pectation that we would follow our calculations of expediency rather than our 
convictions of right and justice. Only once or twice, it would seem, has she 
ever thought our Government in earnest. Should she ever deem it in earnest, 
respect would take the place of covert indifference and the treaty would be lived 
up to. If it was ever advantageous to her, it is doubly and trebly advantageous 
now, and her advantage would be her guide, as has been ours, in the mainte- 
nance of a treaty of trade and navigation. 

If the Russian Government has felt through all these years that it could 
ignore the protest of American ministers and Secretaries of State, it has been 
because the American Government spoke for special interests or from some 
special point of view and not for the American people. It is the fact that the 
attention of the American people has now been drawn to this matter that is 
altering the whole aspect of it. 

We are a practical people. Like the rest of the world, we establish our trade 
relations upon grounds of interest, not sentiment. The feeling of the American 
people toward the people of Russia has always been one of deep sympathy, 
and I believe of ready comprehension, and we have dealt with their Govern- 
ment in frankness and honor, wherever it appears that the interests of both 

19831—11 2 



16 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

nations could be served. We have not held off from cordial intercourse or 
withheld our respect because her political policy vras so sharply contrasted 
with ours. Our desire is to be her friend and to make our relations with her 
closer and closer. 

But there lies a principle back of our life. America is not a mere body of 
traders ; it is a body of free men. Our greatness is built upon our freedom — 
is moral, not material. We have a great ardor for gain; but we have a deep 
passion for the rights of man. Principles lie back of our action. America 
would be inconceivable without them. These principles are not incompatible 
with great material prosperity. On the contrary, unless we are deeply mis- 
taken, they are indispensable to it. We are not willing to have prosperity, 
however, if our fellow citizens must suffer contempt for it, or lose the rights 
that belong to every American in order that we may enjoy it. The price is too 
great. 

Here is a great body of our Jewish fellow citizens, from whom have sprung 
men of genius in every walk of our varied life; men who have become part 
of the very stuff of America, who have conceived its ideals with singular 
clearness and led its enterprise with spirit and sagacity. They are playing a 
particularly conspicious part in building up the very prosperity of which our 
Government has so great a stake in its dealings with the Russian Government 
with regard to the rights of men. They are not Jews in America ; they are 
American citizens. In this great matter with which we deal to-night, we speak 
for them as for representatives and champions of principles which underlie 
the very structure of our Government. They have suddenly become represen- 
tatives of us all. By our action for them shall be tested our sincerity, our 
genuineness, the reality of principle among us. 

I am glad this question has been thus brought into the open. There is here 
a greater stake than any other upon which we could set our hearts. Here is 
the final test of our ability to square our nolicies with our principles. We may 
now enjoy the exhilaration of matching our professions with handsome per- 
formance. We are not here to express our sympathy with our Jewish fellow 
citizens, but to make evident our sense of identity with them. This is not 
their cause ; it is America's. It is the cause of all who love justice and do right. 

The means by which the wrongs we complain of may be set right are plain. 
There is no hostility in what we do toward the Russian Government. No man 
who takes counsel of principle will have in his thought anything but purposes 
of peace. There need be for us in this great matter no touch of anger. But 
the conquests of peace are besed upon mutual respect. The plain fact of the 
matter is that for some 40 years we have observed the obligations of our treaty 
with Russia and she has not. That can go on no longer. So soon as Russia 
fully understands that it can go on no longer, that we must, with whatever 
regret, break off the intercourse between our people and our mercbnnts unless 
the agreements upon which it is based can be observed in letter and in spirit, 
the air will clear. There is every reason why our intercourse should be main- 
tained and extended, but it can not be upon such terms ns :it present. If the 
explicit provisions of our present agreement can not be maintained, we must 
reconsider the matter in the light of the altered circumstances and see upon 
what terms, if any, of mutual honor our intercourse may be reestablished. We 
have advantages to offer her mechanics, her mine owners, her manufacturers 
which her Government will not despise. We are not suppliants. We come with 
gifts in our hands. Her statesmen see as clearly as ours. An intolerable situa- 
tion will be remedied just as soon as Russia is convinced that for us it is, indeed. 
Intolerable. 

Address of Hon. Champ Clark, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

The great question which has brought this vast audience here to-night is 
not one either of religion or of politics. It is not a dispute about Jews or 
Gentiles, Catholics or Protestants, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, or 
Episcopalians, or anything of the sort. In this country there is no discrimina- 
tion under the Constitution or laws against any man because he belongs to any 
church or to no church, to any political party or to no political party. All are 
held to be equal before the law and under the law. The question for considera- 
tion to-night, here and everywhere throughout the country, is whether an 
American passport duly issued to any of our citizens by the State Department 
shall be honored according to the terms of the treaty solemnly entered into 
years and years ago by one of the great nations of earth. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 17 

Our treaty with Russia in no way provides for discrimination against any 
American citizen or against any class of American citizens, and we sliould not 
permit it in practice. Ttiat is tlie plain, fair, candid statement of tlie situation. 

No nation is under tlie slightest obligation to enter into any treaty with us 
whatsoever. But if any nation elects to enter into a treaty with us, the obliga- 
tion rests upon it to carry out the terms of the treaty just as it rests upon us — 
no more, no less. Russia has a perfect right upon due notice to us to abrogate 
this treaty, just as we have the right to abrogate it upon due notice to Russia. 
And as Russia will not honor our passports as to certain classes of our citi- 
zens — Jews, Catholic priests, and Protestant ministers — and as a vast majority 
of American people desire to see all our citizens treated alike when traveling 
in the foreign countries and to be safe under our passports, there seems to be 
nothing left for us to do except abrogate the treaty. 

The conduct of the Russians in this matter is no doubt satisfactory to them, 
but to us it seems unaccountable on any grounds of reason. It has created 
universal horror and has elicited universal protest. We are here to express our 
protest. We appeal to the moral sentiment of the world — that same moral 
sentiment which Daniel Webster invoked not in vain in 1823 in favor of the 
Greeks — that moral sentiment which when fully aroused is stronger than mailed 
legions — stronger than Krupp's big guns — that moral sentiment which when 
properly directed is irresistible for any human power. 

Address of Dr. Jacob Gould Schurman, President of Cornell University. 

The most terrible curse of mankind is hatred of race. And the next in that 
bad eminence is religious persecution. Of these twin furies the chief victim 
for more than a thousand years has been the Jew. Nearly all nations share 
in greater or less degree the deep damnation of his oppression and persecution. 

At the time of the Kishinev massacre in 1903 it was my privilege to speak 
from this platform with our greatest and most honored citizen — Grover Cleve- 
land. We endeavored to voice your horror at the awful crime and your com- 
passion with the helpless sufCerers. Our appeal was to the universal heart 
and conscience of mankind. We had no legal right to denounce or even to 
criticize; we had no standing at the bar of law, whether municipal or inter- 
national. 

To-night we take our stand on the supreme law of the land. On behalf of 
our cause we make no appeal to pity, we touch no chord of sympathy, we in- 
voke neither generosity nor even that natural kindliness and consideration for 
others which is often the best diplomacy of nations. We plant ourselves 
squarely on our rights, and on our rights alone. 

But while we propose to assert our rights, there are two preliminary con- 
siderations about which we are deeply anxious there shall be no misunder- 
standing. In the first place we are lovers of peace and good will. But we 
believe that the only permanent security for peace and good will among the 
nations is a scrupulous regard on the part of each for the just rights of 
others. And in the second place, we are the friends of Russia and desire 
earnestly the continuance of the good relations which for more than a hundred 
years have .subsisted between the Russian and American governments and 
peoples. We are convinced, however, that these frienly relations will not be 
menaced in the slightest degree by a reassertion of the principles on which 
our republic rests, and especially the fundamental democratic principle of equal 
rights and equal protection for all citizens. This is our deliberate judgment 
of the effect of our utterances. But even if, to suppose an utter improbability, 
we were mistaken in our estimates, we could nevertheless not forbear the public 
confession of our devotion to democracy and our loyalty to the Constitution 
of the United States. If on this theme we cravenly held our peace the very 
stones of our country would cry out against us. 

The question before us to-night is Russia's treatment of passports issued to 
American citizens by the Government of the United States. And the basis of 
all our arguments and contentions is the treaty negotiated between this country 
and Russia in 1832 and particularly Article I of that treaty, which reads as 
follows : 

" There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties, a 
reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respec- 
tive States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of 



18 teemhstation of the treaty op 1832. 

the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They 
shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said terri- 
tories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to that effect, 
the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, 
on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, 
and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." 

The language of this article is clear and explicit. It needs no exposition. 
Yet it may be well to remember that it is a general principle of construction 
with respect to treaties that they shall be liberally construed. As Chancellor 
Kent and said : " Treaties of every kind are to receive a fair and liberal inter- 
pretation, according to the intention of the contracting parties, and are to be 
kept with the most scrupulous good faith." Our own Supreme Court has laid 
down the same principle and followed it in its decisions. It has declared that 
" where a treaty admits of two constructions, one restrictive of rights that may 
be claimed under it, and the other favorable to them, the latter is to be pre- 
ferred." And the Supreme Court applied this principle of construction in the 
case of Tucker v. Alexandroff in giving Article X of this same treaty of 1832 
a liberal construction, with the result that Alexandroff, a conscript in the 
Russian naval service who was in this country, was turned over to the Russian 
authorities. And in delivering the opinion in this case the court declared that 
treaties " should be interpreted in a spirit of uberrima fides " — in that " broad 
and liberal spirit which is calculated to make for the existence of a perpetual 
amity " between the parties to the covenant. 

The powers of the Government of the United States both in domestic and 
foreign affairs are defined and restricted by a written Constitution. Now the 
Constitution of the United States provides in section 3, Article VI, that "no 
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public 
trust under the United States." But even this guarantee did not satisfy the 
jealous regard in which the people of the United States held the right of 
religious freedom. Accordingly, the first of the amendments to the Consti- 
tution provided that " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These constitutional 
safeguards not only protect and guarantee religious freedom in the United 
States but also establish the right of American citizens to be dealt with irre- 
spective of their religious belief. And the' history and traditions of the Ameri- 
can people afford an irrefragable confirmation of their oflBcial attitude in all 
matters relating to the inviolability of conscience and religious faith. 

It is not only incredible, therefore, but it is impossible that the Government 
of the United States in 1832 should have entered into treaty obligations with 
Russia in violation of the expressed prohibitions of the Constitution, the spirit 
of our Government, and the sentiments and ideals of our people. Whatever 
else may be contained in this Treaty we can be absolutely sure that it does no 
violence to the religious feelings and beliefs of any part of the American people 
or any section of their common country. Not even the right to self-government 
is more firmly imbedded in the Constitution than the unqualified right of re- 
ligious freedom and the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of their 
religious faith. 

The treaty with Russia was negotiated during the presidency of Andrew 
Jackson, who was a jealous guardian of the rights of the American people. 
It was ratified by an unanimous vote of the Senate. We may be sure that 
neither President Jackson nor the Senate would fail to assert in these negotia- 
tions any of the rights and privileges of the free citizens of this Republic. 
Had they been guilty of such inconceivable laxity they would not only have 
exposed themselves to the denunciations and contempt of their fellow citizens, 
but to the ridicule of the " effete monarchies " of Europe. And there was one 
contemporaneous event which would have made that ridicule especially bitter. 
In 1815 Turkey had made a treaty with Austria, by the terms of which 
Turkey's subjects were to receive in Austria the same treatment as Austrian 
subjects. But in spite of this treaty Austria undertook to treat Turkish Jews 
differently from other Turkish subjects because she treated her own Jews 
differently from her other subjects. But the Turkish Government protested 
against the discrimination, declaring that it could not permit the slightest 
difference to be made between Turkish subjects on account of their creed. 
And to this protest Metternich was compelled to yield, and, therefore, all 
Turkish subjects, Jews as well as others, were treated alike in Austria. 

What President Jackson and the Senate and people of the United States 
would in 1832 have declared impossible and inconceivable has nevertheless 



TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 19 

actually happened. The rights and privileges guaranteed to American citizens 
by Russia in the treaty of 1832 Russia now denies to American citizens of 
the Jewish faith. Russia refuses to honor American passports in the hands 
of our Jewish fellow citizens. It is not merely that instead of a broad and 
liberal she adopts a narrow and rigid interpretation of the treaty. But, what 
is of far more consequence, she makes, by her insistence on this arbitrary 
interpretation, the American Government and American people parties to the 
violation of the Constitution of the United States and to the repudiation of the 
right of religious freedom and equality. And all this she does on the ground 
that American citizens of the Jewish faith can not be suffered to enjoy in 
Russia a larger measure of rights and privileges than Russia is pleased to 
concede to her own Jewish subjects. 

Whatever may be the natural flow of our sympathies and the dictates of our 
hearts, whatever the impulses of our common humanity, when we read of 
Russia's treatment of her Jewish subjects we rigidly restrain and repress them. 
We recognize fully, if sorrowfully, that Russia has the right to govern her 
Jewish subjects by exceptional laws. She may coop them together in certain 
limited territories, prevent them from becoming landowners, bar their access 
to numerous trades, occupations, and professions, and deny their children the 
opportunities of education. All this Russia has the right to do with her own 
Jewish subjects; and whatever the feeling of our hearts we are not here to 
criticise her procedure or question her rights. 

We are here, however, to assert, and we assert it with all the emphasis of 
which we are capable, and we shall continue to assert it in the face of whatever 
consequences, that persons of the Jewish faith who are American citizens are 
entitled to all the rights of American citizens, both at home and abroad. And 
any attempt to restrict those rights we resent, not as a fresh attack on a race 
whose age-long martyrdom entitles them to immunity, but as an outrage on the 
entire body of the American people in all sections of their common country. 

The logic which is invoked to authorize the repudiation of American passports 
in the hands of Jews might be used with the same effect against Americans 
of the Presbyterian faith or of the Baptist faith or of the Catholic faitn or of 
the faith of any other religious affiliation. And by the same reasoning, foreign 
powers might hold themselves free to discriminate against certain sections of 
our country — against the South or against the State of New York or against 
the Pacific Coast. And as a matter of fact Russia already excludes Catholic 
priests and Protestant missionaries as well as Jews. We know not to what 
excesses this dangerous innovation might run. In politics and diplomacy we 
must always be on our guard against precedents. If we tolerate discrimina- 
tion against one section of our citizens we invite discrimination against others. 
In its consequences, therefore, the Russian procedure of which we complain 
is as dangerous as in its principle it is vicious. We believe, therefore, that 
whatever the cost and sacrifice, it is the duty of the American Government and 
the American people to set the ban of their disapproval upon the course pur- 
sued by the Russian Government, and to adopt once for all the policy of 
securing equal treatment by all foreign governments of all American citizens. 

It is no satisfaction to us, it is no palliation of the offense, to learn that 
Russia treats English, French, and German Jews as she treats American Jews. 
The equal humiliation of foreigners is a poor substitute for the impartial 
treatment of American citizens. 

And if, owing to the complexities of the European political system, it is 
difficult for European governments to make effective protest, America for- 
tunately is undeterred by such extrinsic considerations. A beginning in reform 
must be made by some nation, for it is perfectly obvious that with the moral 
and political progress of mankind the indignities which Russia puts on the 
Jews of other nations will not be permanently tolerated. And I know no 
nation more fit to take leadership in this reform that the United States of 
America. By our location we are free from the entanglements of European poli- 
tics. The spirit of our people, our history and traditions, our National Constitution 
and laws, have made us the world's champions of civil and religious liberty and 
the equal rights of all the people. The peace treaties which President 
Taft has negotiated with foreign governments, but which no foreign govern- 
ment could have initiated, form a striking example of American leadership in 
the cause of higher civilization. All these signs and auguries mark our Nation 
as the predestined leader in asserting against Russian opposition the doc- 
trine of our national solidarity, the common rights of all our citizens, and the 
inviolability of the passports sealed with the great seal of the United States. 



20 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 

What reason or excuse does Russia give for this policy of discrimination 
among American citizens which she has adopted? Certainly it is not in the 
first sentence of Article I of the treaty, which declares that " there shall be 
reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation " between Russia and the United 
States. The general rights here guaranteed are particularized in the two fol- 
lowing sentences of the article. The second sentence declares that the inhabi- 
tants of the respective countries shall have liberty to enter the ports, places, 
and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is per- 
mitted. Under this broad stipulation it would seem clear that nothing could 
keep American citizens, whatever their religious faith, out of Russian territory. 
But the Russian diplomats take their stand on the last sentence of the article, 
which declares that the inhabitants of the respective countries shall enjoy " the 
same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on 
condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and 
particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." It is the con- 
tention of the Russian diplomats that the words I have quoted authorize the 
Russian Government to treat American citizens of the Jewish faith in the same 
way as the Russian Government treats its own Jewish subjects, or as an alter- 
native, that they authorize the Russian Government to exclude American Jews 
altogether. 

I need not point out that this interpretation of the last sentence of Article I 
of the treaty can not be reconciled with the two preceding sentences, which pro- 
vide for reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation and liberty for the in- 
habitants of the respective States to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the 
territories of each other. How can these rights be secured if a large portion 
of the American public, solely on the ground of religious faith, are not per- 
mitted to enter the country? 

Indeed the Russian construction is an afterthought. For a period of nearly 
30 years, from 1832 to 1860. there was no trace of the enforcement of any 
discrimination against American citizens of the Jewish faith. The practical 
interpretation which was in this way put upon the treaty by the Russian Gov- 
ernment for a period of 30 years following its negotiation is irrefragable evi- 
dence of the correctness of the interpretation which the American people have 
always put upon that document. 

Nor is this all. We can not admit for a moment the Russian contention that 
a local law can override the obligation of a treaty. This is contrary to the 
well-established principles of international law. As Secretary Blaine wrote in 
1881, " Where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms, it can not 
be limited by the operation of domestic law without a serious breach of good 
faith." Nor is this merely an abstract principle of international law; it is a 
principle which the Government of the United States has already adopted in 
practice. 

In our treaty of 1842 with Great Britain there were provisions regarding 
extradition which the British Government undertook to restrict by an act of 
Parliament in 1870. Our Government protested and remonstrated, but without 
effect. Yet it was determined neither to sacrifice the particular interest at 
issue nor the great principle of international law to the arbitrary determination 
of one of the parties. President Grant accordingly in 1876 laid the facts before 
Congress and announced that unless Congress directed otherwise he would 
refuse to execute the existing treaty either in making or granting requisitions 
for the surrender of fugitive criminals. So long as Great Britain persisted in 
violating the terms of the treaty as they had been understood for nearly 30 
years the American Government persisted in the policy of suspending its opera- 
tion. In six months, however, President Grant was able to announce to Con- 
gress that Great Britain was prepared to observe the extradition clause of the 
treaty in accordance with the interpretation put upon it by the United States. 
The great principle, so essential in all international intercourse, was once more 
established, that one of the parties to a treaty could not be permitted to change 
or alter its terms or construction without the assent of the other. 

The question at issue between the United States and Russia is of far more 
importance than the question at issue between the United States and Great 
Britain a generation ago. That concerned merely the extradition of criminals. 
This has to do with the fundamental rights of American citizenship. But al- 
though the matters of concernment in the two cases are of vastly different 
intrinsic importance, the circumstances surrounding them are strikingly similar. 
Great Britain in the one case and Russia in the other faithfully observed the 
respective treaties for nearly 30 years. Then both parties set up the claim 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 21 

that an international agreement could be changed by means of municipal legis- 
lation by one of the parties to it. President Grant and the Congress of 1876 
repudiated this dangerous doctrine when advocated by Great Britain. And 
their adherence to principle brought us a complete and speedy victory. I can 
not doubt that equal firmness and equal fidelity to principle would accomplish 
the same results in dealing with Russia. And in asserting the equal rights of 
American citizenship our Government would be supported not only by the 
public opinion of the United States, but the public opinion of the civilized 
world. 

The Russian construction of the treaty of 1832 is a fatal misconstruction. 
We hfive endured it for half a century. Yet every year in all that period 
we have by our inaction and acquiescence made ourselves parties to a conven- 
tion which places a stigma upon a large portion of our citizens and consequently 
an affront upon all American citizens. We dishonor ourselves in perpetuating 
a pact that makes a distinction between American citizens on the ground of 
race or religion. If the treaty were not in existence and we know how Russia 
would interpret it if negotiated, it would neither be negotiated by the Presi- 
dent nor ratified by the Senate. Indeed, such a proposal would be regarded 
as a dishonor and disgrace to our nation. For us to become parties to a treaty 
which discriminated between American citizens on the ground of race or re- 
ligion, which did not guarantee equal rights to all American citizens, would 
be to violate the spirit and letter of our Constitution and the fundamental prin- 
ciples on which our democracy is builded. 

Now, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that to make such a new treaty is, on a final 
analysis, not one whit more reprehensible than to maintain such a treaty al- 
ready made. 

The treaty of 1832 provides that it may be abrogated by either party on giv- 
ing 12 months' notice. Two courses are open to us. Either the treaty must be 
abrogated or it must be amended or reinterpreted so that it shall no longer 
override the Constitution of the United States, violate our national sentiments 
and ideals, and dishonor the crown and robe of American citizenship. 

I should greatly prefer an amendment or a new and satisfactory reinterpre- 
tation of the treaty. I am a believer in evolution — not revolution — in every 
field of human endeavor. And even after 50 years of waiting I think our people 
ought to wait for a reasonable time to give diplomacy a final opportunity for a 
satisfactory ad.1ustment of the dispute. 

But I do not think we should wait indefinitely. Already American citizenship 
has, through our own inaction, been too long affronted. The patience of our 
people is well-nigh exhausted. Anything is better than an indefinite continu- 
ance of our participation in the dishonor of American citizenship. It is we 
ourselves and not Russia who stand before the forum of the world on a charge 
of infidelity to our own principles and contempt of our ovni citizenship. We 
must do right, we must play the part of men of honor whatever the consequences. 
And if there is no other way of vindicating ourselves, if renewed efforts at 
accommodation with Russia fail, then I say let the treaty be abrogated since no 
other means is left us of maintaining our own national self-respect, the price- 
less boon of civil and religious liberty, the equal treatment of all our citizens 
before the law, whether at home or abroad, the dignity of American citizenship, 
and the union and brotherhood of all American citizens who constitute our free 
and independent Republic. 

Address of Congressman N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 

Unless the Government of the United States has alienated all the virility 
which it possessed as its organization, it will compel Russia to discontinue her 
discriminations against American citizens of Jewish extraction, or it will sum- 
marily suspend all treaty relations with the Empire of the Czar. The situa- 
tion we are assembled to consider is aggravated beyond endurance, and its ad- 
justment can not be further postponed without a confession of our own utter 
impoteucy. We have forborn until now forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. 
We have delayed until dilatoriness has come to be a crime. The indignities 
of which we complain are not embraced in a single outrage, perpetrated in an 
isolated instance. They constitute a series of humiliations extending through a 
period of nearly two score years, which, when thoroughly comprehended, have 
been generally condemned. The legislatures of 19 sovereign States have urged 
that the national authority be asserted. The pulpit, the press, the platform, 
all the influential organs of public opinion in our land, have insisted that the 



22 TERMINATIOKT OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

dignity of the Republic be maintained. The people themselves, with undivided 
voice from ocean to ocean, have decreed that American citizenship shall be 
vindicated in the exercise of all its constitutional prerogatives, here and every- 
where. Both the great political parties have spoken on the subject. The 
Republicafi national convention at Chicago in 1908 announced : 

"We commend the vigorous efforts made by the administration to protect 
American citizens in foreign lands, and pledge ourselves to insist upon the 
just and equal protection of all our citizens abroad. It is the unquestioned 
duty of the Government to procure for all our citizens, without distinction, the 
rights of travel and sojourn in friendly countries, and we declare ourselves in 
favor of all proper efforts tending to that end." 

The Democratic national convention at Denver, in the same year, declared : 

" We pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and lawful protection of citizens 
at home and abroad, and to use all proper methods to secure for them, whether 
native born or naturalized, and without distinction of race or creed, the equal 
protection of law and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them 
under our treaties; and if, under existing conditions, the right to travel and 
sojourn is denied to American citizens, or recognition is withheld from Ameri- 
can passports on the ground of race or creed, we favor prompt negotiations with 
the governments of such countries to secure the removal of these unjust discrimi- 
nations. We demand that all over the world a duly authorized passport issued 
by the Government of the United States to an American citizen shall be proof 
of the fact that he is an American citizen and shall entitle him to the treat- 
ment due him as such." 

But more than three years have elapsed and no substantial redress has been 
accomplished. We have petitioned and our petitions have been answered by 
evasion. We have remonstrated and our remonstrances have been defeated by 
subterfuge. We have protested and our protests have been avoided by deception. 
The time for petition is gone. The day for remonstrance is past. The hour for 
protest is ended. The moment for decisive action has arrived, and we are here 
to register the ultimatum of an aroused electorate that simple justice shall be 
enforced from Russia in her attitude toward the American Jew. 

In 1832 we entered into a solemn convention with Russia, containing, among 
others, the following stipulation: 

" There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a 
reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respec- 
tive States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of 
the territories of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They 
shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said terri- 
tories in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the 
same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, cm 
condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing and 
particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." 

For half a century that provision was faithfully observed by the Russian 
Government, but since 1882 it has been persistently, notoriously, and defiantly 
violated by the autocracy of the north. For 30 years that Government has 
refused to recognize official passports issued by our State Department wheh 
presented by a Jew, no matter how successful in business, no matter how 
celebrated in literature, no matter how distinguished in affairs, no matter 
how eminent in citizenship he may have been. And this is an infamy to which 
we will not further submit. 

The men who secured our independence, the men who adopted our Constitu- 
tion, the men who established our nationality, understood that a free govei'n- 
ment, permanently to survive, must guarantee to every citizen acknowledging 
allegiance to its flag all the rights, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by 
any other citizen, irrespective of race or religion. Auxiliary to that proposi- 
tion, it has become fundamental with us that a loyal citizen of the Republic 
is entitled to its beneficient protection abroad as well as at home, and that, too, 
whether he be Catholic or Protestant, Jew or gentile. Christian or atheist. 
These salutary principles were embodied in the treaty to which I have re- 
ferred in language so unmistakable that its import is not susceptible of mis- 
construction. But Russia for three decades has arrogated to herself the right 
to exclude from her territory certain citizens of our country solely because of 
their Jewish faith. This condition is intolerable, and a mere "recital of the 
facts ought to be sufficient to command immediate action. Our Hebrew fellow- 
countrymen are vitally interested in the matter, but, after all, it is not so much 
a Jewish question as it is an American question. When a citizen of the great 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 23 

Republic, fortified with a passport issued by his Government and intent upon 
a legitimate mission, is impudently denied entrance into the domain of the 
Czar simply because he is a Hebrew, not merely the 2,000,000 worthy, in- 
telligent, and patriotic Jews of America are affronted, but every citizen of the 
Commonwealth is insulted. 

A passport issued by our Government to one of its citizens, authorizing him 
to enter a foreign country, is silent as to his race or sect or creed, because our 
Constitution prohibits all religious tests. But under an international usage, 
which has been observed for many j^ears, this passport must be approved by 
the consular officers of the country to be visited. When such document is 
submitted to a representative of the Cossack Government, whether in Boston, 
or Chicago, or New York, or Washington, his first inquiry is, " What is your 
religion ? " If the answer discloses that the prospective traveler is a Jew, he 
is insolently disallowed admission into the territory of Russia. When the 
attention of the United States was first directed to this mischievous inquisi- 
tion, the indignation of our Government expressed itself in no uncertain terms. 
As long ago as 1893, upon the refusal of a Russian consul general to indorse 
the passport of Mrs. Minnie Lerin, on the ground that she was of the Jewish 
faith, our Secretary of State communicated with the Russian minister of for- 
eign affairs as follows : 

" His Majesty's Government surely can not expect the United States to ac- 
quiesce in the assumption of a religious inquisitorial function within our 
borders, by a foreign agency, in a manner so repugnant to the national sense. 
I can not but surmise that some strange misapprehension exists in that regard 
in the mind of his Majesty's Government." 

This was a noble declaration, for it implied that our Government would 
resist to the uttermost the unwarranted action of the Russian official. But 
Russia replied in the following brief and conclusive note: 

" The consul general acted in accordance with instructions from his Gov- 
ernment." 

And from that day to this the Russian Government has continued its igno- 
minious examination into the religious opinions of American citizens desiring 
to sojourn temporarily within its domain. If we tolerate this iniquity longer, 
we can not escape the responsibility of an acquiescent partnership in every 
recurring outrage as it is infiicted in the presence of the world. 

Sulzer and Goldfogle and Harrison have exhausted their resources. Cleve- 
land and Roosevelt and Taft have not succeeded by diplomatic intercourse in 
exacting from the Czar's Government the consideration to which our people are 
obviously entitled. We must now resort to the only weapon remaining in our 
arsenal. As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have 
studied the subject as diligently as I am capable of doing, and I have arrived 
at the conclusion that if we can not compel a correction of the sinister injustice 
which I have described, we must terminate at once all amicable relations with 
the Russian Government. 

We do not demand relief for the Jew because he is a Jew, but because he 
is an American citizen whom we are under the most imperative obligations 
to protect equally in Brooklyn and in St. Petersburg. I do not recapitulate the 
contribution he has rendered to the civilization of the world. His career in 
every avenue of activity has been resplendent beyond comparison. In art, in 
music, in science, in literature, in philosophy, and in statesmanship his achieve- 
ments have been phenomenal. Wherever he has established his domicile he 
has performed his full duty as son, brother, father, neighbor, soldier, and 
citizen. He is moral, industrious, and law-abiding. He has been execrated 
and persecuted and banished, but he will not surrender the faith of his fathers. 
He has been the victim of prejudice, ignorance, and brutality, but he will not 
recant his ancient beliefs. In our own country, with equal opportunities, he 
has challenged his gentile brother to a fair field with no favors, and he has 
distinguished himself at the bar and in the Cabinet, on the bench and in the 
legislature. In trade and commerce, in finance and industry, he is almost 
dominant. In education, in journalism, in philanthropy, his record is mag- 
nificently creditable. In every variety of useful and honorable endeavor he 
has attained a distinction which can not be disputed or disparaged. He appre- 
ciates the incomparable advantages of American citizenship and is devotedly 
attached to our Government. In every conflict in which the Republic has 
engaged he has enlisted at the beginning, and has been discharged only after 
every armed enemy of his country has unconditionally capitulated. As a 
Nation we shall be basely recreant if we refuse to secure for him the elemen- 
tary rights he has so loyally earned. I thank you. 



24 TEEMHsTATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Address of Congressman William Sulzer, of New York. 

The treaty with Russia says American citizens are entitled to the same rights 
in Russia that Russian citizens are accorded here. If these right are not 
granted them, then the treaty is violated. Russia does not deny that she dis- 
criminates against certain classes of our citizens, and when complaint is made, 
figuratively speaking, she shrugs her shoulders and asks : " What are you goiuf,' 
to do about it?" 

We have carefully lived up to our treaty obligations with Russia. Every 
Russian coming to this country has been granted all the rights stipulated in 
the treaty, irrespective of race or religion. This is our conception of the 
treaty of 1832. 

What are we going to do about it? Our answer is: Abrogate the treaty. 

This is not a Jewish question. It is an American question. It involves a 
great principle. It affects the rights of all American citizens. Russia not only 
refuses to recognize American passports held by Jews on account of their race, 
but she also refuses to recognize American passports held by Raptist mission- 
aries, Catholic priests, Presbyterian divines, and others on account of their 
religious belief. 

Behind the movement which has crystallized under the auspices of the 
National Citizens' Committee are the big men of every race working as brothers 
in a common interest. 

The Rusian treaty must be abrogated ere the adjournment of this session of 
Congress. The people are aroused as they ne^'er have been before over the 
question, and the time for action has come. 

There can be no arbitration, no delay ; the matter must be settled once for 
all time, and a new treaty arranged in which Russia can find no loophole to 
enable her to discriminate against any class of American citizens. 

We are a patient and long-suffering people where the question involved does 
not touch us on our tenderest spot — our pocketbooks; but the awakening has 
come, and with it a keen realization of the affronts we have suffered at the 
hands of a Government notorious for its lack of human sympathy. 

Freedom of I'eligious belief is one of the corner stones of our institutions, and 
the fathers wrote in the Federal Constitution, " that Congress shall make no 
law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof." We must maintain this great principle inviolate forever. 

Not the religion nor the race of a person, but his American citizenship is 
the true test of the treatment he shall receive and the rights he shall enjoy, 
at home and abroad. This is fundamental. We must adhere to it tenaciously. 

Russia's affront to us has not been unintentional; she has gone about it 
boldly, deliberately, and shamelessly, breaking her given word, ignoring the 
fundamental principles which mark the relationship between nations at peace 
with one another. 

Diplomatic attempts from time to time have failed to secure from the Czar's 
Government even a promise that it would try to give us less cause for com- 
plaint. By her inaction Russia has openly refused to give the matter any con- 
sideration, confident that America's financial interest in her country would 
prevent us from taking any radical step. 

I am in this fight for justice to all to the end, and I shall make every effort 
to pass my resolution to abrogate the Russian treaty. I have every reason to 
believe that it will speedily be enacted into law. To that end, however, every 
true American must lend such aid as he can. 

Address of Hon. Herbert Parsons, of New York. 

My speech is in just two words: Abrogate now. 

Address of Congressman William G. Sharp, of Ohio. 

Early in the last special session of Congress there was introduced in the 
House of Representatives by Messrs. Harrison and Goldfogle, two distinguished 
members of the New York delegation, the following joint resolution, from which 
I quote the opening sentence, and which was referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, of which I have the honor to be a member : 

" Resolved, &y the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America, in Congress assembled. That it is, and always has been, a funda- 
mental principle of this Government that the rights of its citizens shall not be 



TEEMINATION OF THE TEBATY OF 1832. 25 

impaired at home or abroad because of religious belief; that this Government 
concludes its treaties for the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, with- 
out regard to religious belief; that this Government will not negotiate nor be 
a party to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties 
thereto is construed to discriminate, between American citizens on the ground of 
religious belief * * * etc." 

Perhaps the attitude upon this question by our own Government, which from 
its beginning as a Republic has been recognized as the home of the free and as 
a haven for "the oppressed of all nations, could not be better or more completely 
expressed than in these few condensed words which constitute the prelude of 
an indictment against the Government of Russia for its violation of the treaty 
now existing betweau that Government and our own, concluded at St. Peters- 
burg more than three quarters of a century ago. With the sentiments contained 
in that resolution I am heartily in accord and pledge my vote and influence' in 
its support. 

If, however, this homeopathic remedy proves insuflBcient to bring about the 
relief so earnestly sought, as I believe, by a vast majority of the people, then 
I am in favor of resorting to a surgical operation in effect proposed by a reso- 
lution introduced in the United States Senate on the 10th of last April by 
Senator Culberson, which reads as follows : 

" Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the treaty of 1832 between 
tJie United States and Russia should be abrogated because of the discrimination 
by Russia between American citizens in the administration of the treaty." 

That these resolutions are bound to occupy a conspicuous part in the delibera- 
tions of the present session of Congress, there can be no doubt. That the senti- 
ment of the country throughout its length and breadth is overwhelmingly in 
favor of their adoption, if necessary to obtain the end sought, I have no question. 

Indeed, while this grave international dispute may be said to have now 
reached an acute stage, yet it is by no means a new one either as it concerns dis- 
cussions in Congress, led by such earnest advocates as Goldfogle and Sulzer, 
of your city, or as considered in the State Department from the time of Freling- 
huysen down through the list of the successive distinguished Secretaries to the 
present time. The present agitation which will not down is the expected and 
legitimate result of the long continued delay on the part of the Russian Gov- 
ernment in acceding to the reasonable requests for a faithful observance of the 
expressed terms of the treaty. 

So much has been said by political speakers, so much has been written in the 
magazines and the press of the country upon this grave international question, 
that it would indeed be a most ambitious aim on the part of any speaker to be 
able to do better than clothe old arguments and old thought in new words. 

Not in many years has our Government had such an opportunity to assert — 
yes ; and protect, if necessary — the inviolability of American citizenship, no mat- 
ter in what country those right are threatened, as it now has in its dealings 
with the Russian Government. Not since the beginning of our national exist- 
ence will the refusal of this Government to insist upon the full observance of 
those rights be considered so lacking in courage and so pusillanimous in its 
conduct. 

Appreciating, as I believe we all do, the delicacy of the position in which our 
Government might be placed in revoking treaties with a foreign power hereto- 
fore considered friendly, that kind of wise diplomacy consistent always with 
national honor should, of course, be first used, and it is hoped will be, in main- 
taining our integrity as a nation, not only as it concerns its obligation to the 
rights of its citizens, but also in a broader sense, its international standing, if 
you please, among the nations of the earth. 

The results of such a diplomacy futile, its obligation to its citizens and the 
very sense of justice itself demand an abrogation of the existing treaty with 
Russia. 

No matter how interesting or how conspicuous a place in the political and 
religious affairs of European countries the feeling of anti-Semitism has occupied 
in the past, that question, though it may present some embarrassing features 
in the present instance, happily has never been one to be unfavorably considered 
in any aspect in this country. Neither should it afford any reason to our 
Government why it should not compel a full, unrestricted, and undiscriminative 
observance on the part of the foreign powers to recognize passports granted to 
its citizens by our Government. Though the persecution of the Jews during 
the last quarter of the century just closed forms one of the blackest pages in 
the history of those countries guilty of such atrocities and however much they 



26 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

may be condemned by the people of this country, yet no one contends that the 
United States should interfere with the internal policy or domestic affairs of 
any foreign Government. When, however, the objects of the hatred of such 
persecutors come to our shores and invest themselves with the full rights of 
American citizenship they must then — until from choice they divest themselves 
of such rights — receive exactly the same degree of protection, no matter in what 
country they happen to sojourn, as is accorded to any other citizen of this 
country. 

Though it is not my purpose in this opportunity given me of expressing my 
views upon the subject under discussion, to enter into a eulogy upon Jewish 
citizenship in America, yet, recognizing the achievements, the patriotism and 
commendable domestic character of that race in our land, it is incredible to 
me how a civilized nation could deny to such people the fullest measure of 
political rights and freedom. Plow many pages descriptive of the industrial 
and financial development of our great American cities would have to be filled 
with the part played in such work by its Jewish people if a faithful narrative 
of their achievements were recorded. What part in the helpful and effective 
work of our charitable organizations, our civic improvements, and our commer- 
cial advancement has this class of our citizens played in the past. 

Indeed the work of this class of men in such fields of enterprise as journalism, 
banking, and humanitarianism may well furnish an inspiration for the Ameri- 
can youth of whatever creed or nationality. 

From time to time suggestions have been thrown out — I trust wholly with- 
out cause — that there may be business reasons why insistence upon the carrying 
out of this treaty should not be made. While I am ready and willing to 
acknowledge that we as a Nation must continue more and more to expand 
industrially and commercially beyond the limits of home consumption if we 
are to enjoy that degree of prosperity to which our prominence entitles us, yet 
such expansion of trade must ever be at the price of our national honor or at 
the sacrifice of the guaranteed rights of the humblest citizen rightly claiming 
protection of our flag. 

Dollar diplomacy, without it is sustained in honor, will fail even from a 
materialistic standpoint, as no nation or individual can hope to profit or should 
be allowed to do so at such a price. 

Address of Congressman Francis Burton Harrison, of New York. 

Nearly eight years ago I made my first speech in the House of Representa- 
tives, and it was on the subject of the abuse by Russia of our passport. Dur- 
ing all these intervening years I have been active in the endeavor to redress 
this international wrong and now it seems that the efforts of those of us who 
have labored in this cause are about to be crowned with success. 

For over a generation we have been the tools of Russian diplomacy. We 
have in vain intrusted the assertion of our national honor to diplomatic 
channels. The time has come for a more vigorous move. The best weapon 
ready to our hand is the abrogation of the treaty, from which the shameful 
practice is alleged to spring. To all of our diplomatic representations on the 
passport question Russia has replied that she is merely living up to her side 
of the treaty. Let us do away with the treaty and deprive her of that excuse. 
The matter will then rest upon the broad rights of American citizenship. 
Let Russia admit us all or reject us all, and in the final analysis let us give 
her to understand that of all discriminations which she might practice between 
American 'citizens, religious discrimination is to us the most objectionable. 

But the timid say that if we abrogate our treaty with Russia, American 
commerce will suffer. This I entirely deny. In my opinion, commerce will 
go on between the two countries in substantially the same way as it does now, 
unless indeed Russia should put herself further in the wrong by undertaking 
aggressive reprisals. Commerce is not dependent upon treaties but upon the 
business requirements of the people of the two countries and will continue to 
flow in its accustomed channels, treaty or no treaty. But I value human rights 
higher than the profits of commerce. I place the dignity of our country on a 
higher plane than the ledgers of our merchants, and come what may, I most 
strongly favor the utter annihilation of the document, under cover of which a 
nation ostensibly favorable to us can practice on American citizens the most 
odious of discriminations. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 27 

Remarks of Honoeable William S. Bennet, of New Toek. 

Men are more important than property and principle more than either. 
The fight to abrogate the Russian treaty is a fight for principles. "We will not 
permit any portion of our people to be discriminated against because of 
religious belief. It is an American, not a Jewish question. It is a national, 
not a commercial question. No nation can long survive which subordinates 
principle to either life or property. It is not at all essential that we should 
make money. It is not even greatly important that any one of us should live 
a particular term of years, but it is essential that this Nation should survive. 
It can not survive without principle. It can not survive unless an injury to 
one is the concern of all. 

Address of Congressman William M. Calder, of New York. 

Mr. Chaii'man, ladies, and gentlemen, I know of nothing that I can add to 
what has already been said. But there is one point that I have in mind that 
has not been touched upon here this evening, and I will speak on that just for 
a moment, and then end. I have heard it discussed in the newspapers that we 
take upon ourselves the right, by treaty it is true, to prevent coming to this 
country Chinese and Japanese; and that therefore we ought to accord to 
Russia the same right to any particular citizenship of our country. I answer 
that by saying that we accord to the Japanese and the Chinese merchant and 
student, men of science and art, the right to come and go in this country just 
as they please, if he presents to this country the facts that he has come here 
for that purpose. And I am also aware of the fact that while this Government 
of ours issues its passports to every citizen, when they come to be looked over 
by the Russian consul, that Russian consul does not ask of the men with the 
passports, " What is your race, or whence do you come, or where were your 
people born?" but, "What is your religion?" This country of ours, founded 
by Almighty God, was established from the beginning that we people should 
serve God as we feel disposed, and for all time that that privilege should be 
created. With my other colleagues from New York, Messrs. Sulzer, Harrison, 
and Goldfogle, I introduced upon the opening of this Congress a resolution 
abrogating this treaty with Russia. I shall appear before Mr. Sulzer's com- 
mittee next week and ask that that committee report a resolution of thi& 
character, and I can assure you, with the rest of these gentlemen, that the 
House of Representatives will pass a general resolution abrogating that treaty.. 
Now, like all the rest of my distinguished associates here, I had a speech in 
my pocket, and one in my heart as well, that perhaps would have occupied 
your time and ours for some length ; but we have a rule in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, an arrangement that when the das^ is getting late and the Members 
are tired and weary and want to go home that a fellow sometimes gets up in 
his place and gets the eye of the Speaker, and asks the unanimous consent that 
his speech may be printed in the Record ; and so I will say that while I have 
not my speech written out, perhaps some time I will finish it and put it in 
the Record. I thank you. 

Address of Congressman Henry M. Goldfogle, of New York. 

This large and inspiring assemblage, gathered in the patriotic cause of na- 
tional justice and righteousness, evidences that the consciousness of the Ameri- 
can people is fully aroused on this most important passport proposition. 

It is a deeply deplorable fact that despite the grandeur, the power, and the 
glory of our beloved country, Russia has persistently discredited our passports 
when presented at the Russian gate by law-abiding American citizens, on the 
ground of the religious faith of the holder. 

The treaty concluded between the United States and Russia in 1832 by its 
terms guarantees the right of our citizens to unmolested travel and sojourn in 
Russia as fully and completely as we afford unmolested travel and sojourn to a 
Russian subject in our territory; and yet in the face of that solemn compact 
Russia makes discrimination between our citizens, she turns that passport 
aside with scorn, treats it with contempt, humiliates our citizens, and by that 
act insults the American Nation. 

It has been the teaching of our country since the creation of the Republic, 
and it has been our proud boast that all our citizens are equal before the law 
and are entitled to the equal protection of the American flag, whether abroad 
or at home. 



28 TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

In the face of this, America has tolerated entirely too long Russia's defiant 
and insulting conduct. For years we have, through diplomatic channels, made 
representations to the Russian Government and sent to her our earnest remon- 
strances against her treatment of our citizens holding American passports. 

Congress has within the last 12 years thrice passed resolutions, each one of 
which I had the honor to introduce, for the purpose of securing the abrogation 
of Russia's unjust, intolerant, and bigoted restriction. 

The last two of these resolutions — one of 1904 and the other of 1909 — called 
upon the President to take steps to secure from Russia the removal of these 
restrictions or to secure new and definite treaty stipulations, under which no 
question could arise as to Russia's duty to recognize our citizens equally and 
alike. 

Perhaps the strongest demand that was made upon Russia since the question 
was agitated was found in the communication of the American ambassador at 
St. Petersburg, which conveyed the full text of the resolution of 1904 to the 
Government of the Czar. In it, among other things, the ambassador said : 
" The resolution voices not only the feelings of the American people, but also a 
principle that lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason 
that the question has been, is, and always will be a live question with us, 
and liable to become acute and be brought forward at some time in such a way 
as to seriously disturb the friendly relations which have always existed between 
Russia and the United States." 

Mark you, this we said to the Russian Government a little over seven years 
ago; and though since we have again and again repeated our demand, Russia 
has bid us defiance, and to this day she has remained obstinate in her course. 
It is, indeed, awful to contemplate that Russia, despite her protestations of 
friendship for our country, and her repeated and as often broken promises, 
made in years long past, to extend better treatment, wickedly continues in her 
outrageous course of discrimination against a peojjle she proscribes, and turns 
her back contemptuously on the American passport they present at her doors 
for no other reason than they are loyal to the faith of their fathers, true to 
their conscience, faithful to their God. 

Sir, were we considering to-night Russia's conduct toward the people who 
are proscribed within her own country, what a painful story of tragic hate, of 
bitter malice, of base persecution, and harsh tyranny could we unfold. Un- 
offending men, women, and children have been the object of her fanaticism and 
the victims of her despotism. Oppressive laws and proscriptive edicts have 
been directed against them which made them the victims of Russian hate and 
rapacity. Merciless cruelty and unspeakable barbarity have too often been 
the sad lot of these unhappy people. Against the outrages to which they were 
subjected — atrocities which shocked the sensibilities of all humanity; which 
stain the pages of Russia's history and shame the civilization of the age — we, 
in the past uttered our protest. But we are not dealing with that phase of 
Russia's treatment to-night. With her internal treatment of her own subjects 
within her own domain we can not interfere. But the question which vitally 
concerns us now is. What shall America, in its line of duty to its own citizens, 
native and naturalized and of every creed, do to secure for them uniformity 
of treatment under treaty rights, and to maintain inviolate the integrity of the 
American passport? 

Let no man here or abroad misunderstand the principle upon which we have 
made our demand, and which now calls for decided action — it is the principle 
of Americanism, to be fought out on no narrow lines, but upon broad, liberal, 
American lines that appeal to every American mind and touch every American 
heart. 

If it be asked in virtue of what right the class of citizens mainly discriminated 
against look to this country for action tending to prevent the continuance of the 
discrimination that Russia makes, I would, instead of using my words, borrow 
the words of the late William M. Evarts, who, when Secretary of State, in- 
structing our then minister at St. Petersburg, said : " In the presentation of the 
facts you should be careful to impress that we ask treaty treatment for our 
aggrieved citizens, not because they are Jews, but because they are Americans." 
It is pleasing that this question has always been regarded — as it always 
should be — as a purely American question. Besides the large body of Jews at 
which the restrictions are mainly aimed, there are other faiths against which 
Russia, in her bigoted course, draws the line of demarcation. 

It matters little, however, against how many of one class, or how many of an- 
other class of American citizens Russia may level her restrictions as to entry 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 29 

within her borders — it is America's duty to protect, in the broadest way, all her 
citizens alike, allowing discrimination against none — protecting all by every 
legitimate means at her command. 

When the foreigner comes to our shore to travel or sojourn or seek a home, we 
ask not what his faith or what his professed religious creed may be. We afford 
him the hospitable shelter of our lands, and this we do, not as a matter of mere 
favor, but in virtue of the cardinal principles of our Government, thundered 
out to the world by a Washington, a Jefferson, an Adams, and a Patrick Henry, 
and the others of the patriot band of our revolution who, in early life of our 
Republic proclaimed America's creed as it is written in ancient lore : " Libe: ty 
throughout the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.' 

In the exercise of the highest ideal of America — civil and religious liberty — 
our country has flourished and prospered as none other since the creation of 
the world. Through its means we have cemented the ties of our comjuon citizen- 
ship, given hope and cheer to every man within our borders, and instilled the 
noblest ambitions and highest aspirations ; banished class distinction, dispelled 
base prejudice, and secured thet emancipation of the slave. Civil and religious 
liberty, consecrated by the suffering and martyrdom of our Revolutionary 
fathers, jealously guarded through every epoch of our Nation's history and our 
Nation's trials, has been the potent factor to upbuild and aplift humanity, and 
to make this country the enlightened and progressive and prosperous Nation 
it is to-day. 

If Russia — bigoted, autocratic, intolerant Russia — were to go but half the 
distance that America has gone in the conferring of civil and religious liberty, 
she would find that instead of incurring the displeasure and the criticisms that 
have been so often justly expressed against her, she would rather win some 
measure of favorable opinion of mankind. 

When I first entered Congress, I took up this passport fight as an American 
sitting as a Representative in the National Legislature. I deemed it my daty, 
unceasingly and unflinchingly, to wage the fight, and I trust yet to see, God 
helping our efforts, and sustained and cheered by the sentiment of the American 
people everywhere, a successful outcome of the issue and the vindication of our 
citizenship through the uniform recognition of the passport by Russia, regard- 
less of the religion of the man who bears it. On the very opening day of the 
present Sixty-second Congress my colleague, Mr. Harrison, and I together intro- 
duced a resolution to abrogate the treaty. Mr. Sulzer also introduced a similar 
resolution. So did Mr. Calder and some others of my colleagues, all of whose 
valuable aid we fortunately have. 

Standing as an American loyally devoted to my country and her flag, recog- 
nizing no division or distinction between our citizens who happen to differ in 
creed, I insist upon the maintenance of those rights that make for the equality 
guaranteed to all Americans by tlie Constitution of the Republic and the broad, 
the libei'al, and the tolerant policy of this God-blessed land. 

The time for action is at hand. We must proceed unfalteringly and with 
steady hand. The spirit of the American people everywhere upon this great 
question is aroused. We can no longer permit Russia to treat us with contempt 
or turn away our citizens after submitting them to the humiliation of an 
Inquisition into their religious belief. The twelfth article of the treaty of 1S32 
provides that either Government may give notice to the other of 12 months of 
its election to terminate the treaty. 

Well, then, let us give that notice. Let us tell Russia that from this very 
hour she must cease her insulting treatment of our citizens. She must honor 
the passport which bears the seal of the Tnited States. She must not dis- 
criminate between our citizens because their religion happens to be opposed to 
her ideas. With craft and cunning and false promises she has evaded entirely 
too long the issue, and America, to maintain the integrity of her citizenship 
and preserve her national self-respect, must now demand that Russia live up 
squarely to her solemn compact or we must denounce the treaty for her per- 
sistent violation of it. 

Abrogation of the treaty is the proper remedy now proposed. I urged it 
and advocated it in 1909. I incorporated a clause for the abrogation of the 
treaty in the original resolution of 1909, and it is with delight that I note that 
my views on the subject of abrogation are now vindicated and sustained by 
my fellow countrymen. 

American honor demands the decided action which you have met here to 
ask. Your protest, joined with the protests coming from every section of the 
Republic, will create that powerful, overwhelming sentiment which will move 



30 TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Congress to action and impel the Executive to notify Russia to cease her 
discrimatory conduct now and forever or submit to a cessation of the treaty. 

Did time permit, or were it at all necessary, after the splendid addresses that 
have been made, I would gladly enter upon a discussion of those details which 
would make it clear to those who have not yet studied the subject or looked 
into it closely, the necessity of taking the steps which you as Americans are 
assembled to demand. But I must, in justice to those who are to follow me^ 
hasten on. 

I would not, however, close before saying to my fellow countrymen that if 
we shall compel Russia to respect the passport, which is the badge of honorable 
citizenship, we will have taken a long step in the direction of impressing a 
powerful moral lesson on Russia, tending to break down the barriers that 
unfortunately and sadly still exist in that country between class and class,, 
brought about through bigotry, persecution, and intolerance. 

We shall win the fight. Failures in the past shall not discourage us. Victory 
shall yet be ours. Remember, 

Freedom's battle, once begun, 
Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son, 
Thougli baffled oft, is ever won. 



The following letter from Gov. Judson Harmon, of Ohio, was read by Secre- 
tary Bernard Nolan : 

State of Ohio, Executive Department, 

Columbus, December 4, 1911. 
Dear Mb. Sulzeb: I am sorry previous engagements keep me from the meet- 
ing December 6, because I heartily approve its purpose. We must put public 
sentiment behind our official agents. Then we shall secure from Russia full 
respect for American passports. We permit no discrimination at home among 
our citizens, whether native or adopted and whatever their race or religion, and 
we can submit to none by other countries; for if we do, we become parties to 
it ourselves. 

Very truly, yours, Judson Harmon. 

Hon. William Sulzer, 115 Broadway, "New York, N. T. 

Mr. Nolan also read the following telegrams : 

Washington, D. C, December 6. 
National Citizens' Committee, 

Hudson Terminal Building, 30 Church Street, New YorJc. 
I regret to find that engagements will prevent my attending the meeting of 
the National Citizens' Committea to-night in New York. I am in cordial sym- 
pathy with the purposes of the meeting. The time has come when some definite 
and final action must be taken to put an end to discriminations against certain of 
our American citizens. I am informed that negotiations are now being conducted 
with the Russian Government looking to changing these conditions and that 
they give good prospect of more practical result than our previous negotiations, 
which have extended over so many years. We should know definitely, however, 
at a very early date just whether anything is to be hoped for or expected in this 
direction ; and if nothing can be done, I am in favor of giving notice of the abro- 
gation of the present treaty with Russia. No delays ought to be permitted, and 
this question ought to be definitely decided soon after the beginning of the new 
year. I extend my best greetings and wishes. 

Boies Penrose. 



Washington, D. C, December 6. 

National Citizens' Committee, New Yoric City: 

I regret beyond measure my inability to be present this evening at the great 
New York mass meeting to enter a righteous protest against the intolerant 
position of the Russian Government in the matter of dishonoring passports 
issued to American citizens and to urge a militant step forward for the sum- 
mary ending of a grievous insult to the American flag. As a member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, I pledge myself 
unqualifiedly in favor of the immediate passage of the Sulzer resolution pro- 



TERMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 31 

vidiug for the abrogation of the treaty between the United States and Russia, 
as negotiated at the convention of St. Petersburg in 1832, for a paper of state 
that permits such a flagrant breach of international comity as has been suf- 
fered by American citizens at the hands of the Russian monarchy is not worth 
the paper upon which it is written. Kindly assure the great assembly that the 
Sulzer resolution will pass the Committee on Foreign Affairs by a majority 
vote, and that I am pledged to its furtherance with every consideration in 
my power. 

James M. Cubley, 
Member of Congress from Massachusetts and 

Member of Committee on Foreign Affairs. 



Washington, D. C, December 6. 
National Citizens' Committee, 

30 GJmrch St., New York City: 
I find that it will be impossible for me to be present at the meeting in Car- 
negie Hall this evening, but I wish you would say on my behalf to those 
present that the subject of the treatment of the American passport in the 
hands of any American citizen is one in which I am deeply interested and 
which I am sure must appeal with great force to every American. The spec- 
tacle of a great and alleged friendly nation persistently and perniciously violat- 
ing a treaty into which it has solemnly entered and discriminating against one 
class of our citizens, solely because of their race or creed, presents a condition 
such as we as a self-respecting nation can not tolerate. For over 30 years 
the diplomatic officers of our Government have expended their efforts in fruit- 
less endeavor to correct this insolent wrong. Hedging behind one specious pre- 
text or other, the Russian Government has continued to maintain the dis- 
criminatory policy it inaugurated in violation of our treaty rights and no other 
recourse is left us, if we would save our honor, but to serve notice that the 
treaty is to be terminated. I hope to live to see the day when an American 
passport, in the hands of an American citizen, will beget as scrupulous respect 
and regard for the rights of its holder as that which of old was accorded the 
individual who could proudly boast, " I am a Roman." To these views I would 
add that as a Member of the House of Representatives and of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, I pledge my earnest support of the movement for the abro- 
gation of the present treaty with Russia, unless she recognizes all passports of 
American citizens regardless of race or creed. 

J. Charles Linthicum, 
Member of Congress from Maryland and 
Member of Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

The closing benediction was offered by Rev. Dr. Joseph Silverman of Temple 
Emanu-El. 

Chairman McAdoo in his closing remarks praised the work of Henry Green, 
general director of the National Citizens' Committee, who organized the move- 
ment which culminated in the mass meeting. More than 4,000 persons were ad- 
mitted into Carnegie Hall and more than 3,000 were turned away for lack of 
room. 

The Chairman. The next speaker will be Judge Mayer Sulzberger, 
of Philadelphia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAYER SULZBERGER, PRESIDENT JUDGE 
OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NO. 2, PHILADELPHIA. 

Mr. Sulzberger. Gentlemen of the committee, the question pre- 
sented before you to-day has reached such a stage, as evidenced by 
the resolutions presented by Mr. McAdoo and by the record of the 
speeches made at the great meeting at New York, that I take it a 
very simple statement of the proposition as I understand it will be- 
quite sufficient. 

19831—11 3 



32 TERMIlsrATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

I know that in the present condition of affairs there is a very 
great disposition — a natural disposition — on the part of Russia to 
divert everything from the iliain issue; but any man who has sat in 
criminal courts and tried cases will understand that shifty devices 
to sidetrack the main issue and get a lot of little minor points in in 
order to distract the attention of the jury from the great question 
are very commonly resorted to by the lawyer in a criminal court. 
But when affairs of nations, based upon international law and upon 
treaties are involved they ought not to be viewed in that pitifully 
small manner. 

After all, international law, in its base, was not founded on treaties, 
but founded on the common morality and interest of humanity, and 
international law arose before formal treaties were made. - ' 

Formal treaties are but the particular expression of a more and 
more intimate relation between powers. We have had such* a treaty 
with Russia since the year 1832. It was a treaty which for the time 
was a great advance in relations between that large and powerful 
European State and the United States. It provided in the frankest 
possible manner, and in the simplest possible language, for mutuality 
of intercourse in trade and in commerce among the inhabitants of 
the respective treaty States. Not a word was in that treaty about a 
discrimination as to the character of the inhabitants of either State 
regarding their religious beliefs. All inhabitants of both States 
were entitled to the benefits of the treaty. It became of much 
greater importance than it was at the time of this negotiation. At 
the time of the negotiation of the treaty, in 1832, the Jewish popu- 
lation of the United States was relatively small. I do not think it 
exceeded '50,000. Certainly it did not exceed 100,000. Now the 
Jewish population of the United States is 2,000,000. It has not 
advanced in the same proportion as the general population has, but 
nevertheless it is a much larger body than it was in 1832, and the 
questions arising under the treaty are more frequent and will become 
more and more complicated. 

In 1867 or 18G8 — about 40 years ago — Russia, which had been 
rather quiescent on the subject, not much having happened, began 
to make the distinction that the Jewish citizens of the United States 
were not included within the terms of the treaty. 

The only two sections of the treaty that have any bearing whatever 
on the subject are, first, a phrase in the first section, and, second, a 
phrase in the tenth section, A phrase in the first section says that 
anybody taking advantage of it must obey the laws of the state. 
Of course he must. We do not need a treaty for that. That is 
merely the writing of a truism. Everybody is subject to the laws of 
the state wjiich he inhabits. 

Article X was a provision respecting intestate laws, namely, that 
a citizen of either State might have heirs or devisees or legatees in 
the other State and that there might be hostile regulations prevent- 
ing money or its equivalent, or land values or land, going out of the 
ownership of citizens of the State. You can all understand the 
reason for that. The soil of a State primarily belongs to the people 
of the State, and aliens are only allowed to hold a part of the very 
soil of the State by the grace of the State and by no other means. 

There is no actual law which would enable an alien to own part 
of the soil of the State or the soil of any State of the United States. 



TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 33 

It is merely the grace, the liberal coiiduct, the free thought of these 
States that generously concedes to persons having property rights, 
although they be not citizens, to hold lands or get the proceeds of 
them. 

That was the object of the tenth section, and it reflected credit on 
the wisdom and on the liberality — I will not say the liberality of 
the United States Government, because the United States Govern- 
ment is founded on the broadest principles of liberality and is the 
missionary and the apostle of freedom and liberality to the world. 
We have nothing to say about that liberality, because it was to be 
expected. Noblesse oblige. The United States had to do it. But it 
was an act of liberality on the part of Russia. It was negotiated on 
the part of Russia by their great minister. Count Nesselrode. Count 
Nesselrode was not a minister like the ministers of Russia of to-day. 
He was a -great statesman and a great diplomat. He was not even 
born in Russia. His father was ambassador to Portugal, and he was 
born at Lisbon; and his mother was not a member of the Greek 
Church, but a Protestant. He was baptized in the Church of Eng- 
land at Lisbon. So that whatever may have been his subsequent 
attitude toward the formalities of the Greek Church he was not of 
that religion, and he was a man baptized in the Church of England. 

With such surroundings, when his father was transferred to Ber- 
lin as ambassador, he went to the gymnasium in Berlin and received 
a German education. He, in conjunction with the Emperor Alex- 
ander I, had a great notion of a kind of United States of Europe, 
more or less unified. 

Russia, with its great territory, its great population, through its 
great statesmen, seemed to be the destined factor of primacy on the 
Continent, and the whole of Russian statesmjinship was directed 
toward the union or league of European States in which Russia, by 
reason of its vast extent and of its great and increasing population, 
should have the primacy, and there was everything to encourage it. 

Austria was composed of a large number of little States not in 
unity or harmony with each other. What we now call the Empire 
of Germany had, I think, about 200 sovereignties, some so minute 
that they were scarcely visible on the map. Italy was broken up in 
States almost numberless. So that to the west of Russia, until it 
reached France and the British Sea, there was a disorganized state 
of Europe which invited the primacy of a great power that had 
unity, and of course Russia was heading for European civilization. 
But events occurred which changed this whole current of Russian 
thought. 

Austria was, if not absolutely, relatively unified. Italy became the 
United States of Italy. Germany began its wonderful progress first 
by its assault on Austria and then by the great war with France, that 
resulted in the consolidation of an Empire the like of which has not 
heretofore been seen on the Continent of Europe. 

Of course to Russia it became obvious that the European venture 
was no longer possible, and therefore it turned its eyes to Asia. In 
order to dominate that vast Continent of Asia it became necessary 
to cut out every idea of freedom, every idea of modern progress, 
every idea of government by the people, every glimmering of the 
ideas for which the United States of America stands. And they 



34 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

devoted themselves to that purpose with the most absolute fidelity 
and conscientiousness. All glimmerings of freedom had been de- 
stroyed, and when, notwithstanding all that, it became necessary to 
■ grant the privilege of a parliament, a Duma, in 1905, they only lis- 
tened to that parliament for a few months and arranged it so that 
that parliament became a mere nothing, an excuse by which the 
reigning powers could refrain from doing anything they did not 
want to do. They would say, " We can not do it ; the Duma — the 
' Dummy ' — has the power." A mere subterfuge. They could take 
the most important affairs of empire, could arrange for an adjourn- 
ment of the Dun: a for a week, and make any ministerial orders that 
they wanted to with the effect of permanent law. 

It is important that we understand, therefore, the relations of 
the powers before we begin to understand the treaty. Now, in the 
United States the beneficiaries of the treaty were all the citizensy 
and all the citizens were composed of natives of the United States, 
of natives of other countries who had been naturalized in the United 
States, but not derived from Russia, and of natives of Russia who 
have been naturalized in the UnHed States. 

Now, it is too simple to require any utterance that no state has 
any power to regulate the internal affairs of another state. We do 
not require the energetic protest of Russia that they will not allow 
the United States to regulate the internal affairs of Russia. They 
ought not to. No more, then, will we allow Russia to regulate the 
internal affairs of the United States. We ought not to. _ 

It is for that reason, on account of the conflict of internal laws 
between States, that treaties are made. A treaty is a modus vivendi 
by which great States, recognizing their immediate inner necessities, 
the multiplicity of regulations required in a great Siate for the gov- 
ernment of the whole State and its parts and of the divisions of its 
citizens, ignores all minor transactions and adopts a few general 
rules which shall hold as the social rules between great States. That 
we call a treaty. 

In a treaty there are not written statutes or ordinances or de- 
crees or private commands ; there is written in a treaty nothing but 
what is in the treaty. The men who negotiate treaties may talk 
about other things, hold pourparlers, conversations, and diplomatic 
intercourse; they may write and they may speak; but all that is 
finally ended wlien it is incorporated in the treaty. No understand- 
ing in a written contract can be imputed to it that is not written 
in it. That is true not only of treaties but of contracts. Previous 
negotiations are swallowed up in the writing. And necessarily so. 
Here these conversations were in St. Petersburg. The treaty was 
examined by our executive department, composed of the Senate and 
of the President, with his Cabinet. They did not hear the conversa- 
tions, which might have been carried on partly in clubs, partly on 
the street, partly at a dinner table. They did not want to hear 
them and it was none of their business to hear them. All that is 
relevant is in the paper, and what that paper does not say is not in 
it, and can not be inserted in it. That paper says that all the inhabi- 
tants of the United States have the right of travel in the domain of 
the other, and when it says all it means all, without any reserva- 
tion other than that contained in the paper, and there is not a word 
or a hint, however remote, about religious affiliations or beliefs of 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 35 

anybody. The only possible hint which ingenious perversion may 
distort into a reservation is the provision of the article that those ar- 
rangements for the inheritance of an estate shall not interfere with 
the laws of the em-pire forbidding emigration from the State, and 
that is all. It does not mean anything whatever on the subject of 
the rights of immigrants into the United States, because the treaty 
does not say " citizens of the United States." It says " inhabitants." 

If a person has emigrated from Russia and is an inhabitant of the 
United States, he is entitled to the benefit of the treaty. And then 
they say in their saving clause, " But hold on ; this man may have emi- 
grated from Russia and be an inhabitant of the United States." 
That might be tortured into a meaning that we have waived in gen- 
eral our immigration laws, and that is all that the tenth article of the 
treaty means. But I am willing to grant that it means all that the 
most ingenious Russian quibbler can say, and that it means that no 
man who is expatriated from Russia would have any rights in Russia. 
More than that they can not ask. All of that I am willing to grant. 

It is a very curious question and under it a new question in inter- 
national law would here arise. We all know that authorized ex- 
patriation is application by a subject to his sovereign to be relieved 
from his allegience and it is a grant by the sovereign that he may be 
so released. But is there anyone who has heard the history of the 
Jews in Russia from 1890 to this very moment who can say there is 
only one way by which a government may give its assent to emigra- 
tion? It may, it is true, gi\e it by the formal order of clerks and 
departments and certificates and seals, but when without all these it 
uses grinding oppression, torture of the soul, torture of the body, 
assassination, raises mobs in hundreds of towns that slay old men at 
their devotions and pregnant women, and rip them up, as they did 
at Kishineff in 1903, who shall say that such a " civilized " state dare 
go before the world and say that it has forbidden emigration, when 
those who flee escape from these atrocities with bayonets and axes 
behind them? 

As we say in the law, there must be an equitable expatriation, 
without clerks and without seals, and without certificates, and it 
does not lie in the mouth of a barbaric State to plead these refine- 
ments of legal practice. But grant them that — say that it is all 
right, that they have the right to protest against Russians coming 
to the United States and claiming rights under the treaty. That 
would only give them the right to ask a man who has a passport, 
"Are you a Russian?" Would it give them a right to say to them, 
"Do you go to the Jewish church?" What has that to do with ex- 
patriation? Why, they themselves by their consular practices, while 
they are fostering their industries — no, I will not call them indus- 
tries ; they are war powers — feebly trying to restore the groundwork 
of a navy which, by the mercy of God, Japan has ground into pow- 
der, are raising a detached fleet which is now used for passenger 
service between Libau and New York, and which are in the interests 
of what you might call Russian commerce, or what you might call 
the growth of a Russian navy ; there a Jew does not need a passport. 
All you have to do is to buy a Libau ticket and you can go to Rus- 
sia, and she thus makes the United States the accomplice in the viola- 
tion of its treaties with England and France and Germany under 
the most-favored-nation clause by letting Russian steamships alone 



36 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

carry people bound for Russia on their steamers, because Russia 
gives them a passport and refuses the passport to a man who wants 
to go on an English, French, or German steamer. That shows 
the sincerity of the Russian Government on the passport question. 
And that is not only at sea — it is true on land. If you happen to be 
in Japan and want to go to Europe nobody will bother about your 
religion if you take a ticket on the Siberian Railroad. But when 
you want to go by the southern route, by English and Dutch and 
German steamers, you will find that this anxious curiosity about the 
private beliefs of people is immediately restored to its pristine vigor. 

Moreover, when a man takes passage by a Russian steamer they 
do not bother about his passport at all, but they say " We will have 
it all viseed for 80 cents if you will bring a certficate from your 
rabbi." But us, those of us who were born in the United States and 
who never had any knowledge of Russia other than that obtained 
from the map and from the atrocious pages of history, us they ask. 
Why, there is a gentleman on your committee whose ancestors were 
settled in this country before the Romanoffs were settled in Russia, 
Mr. Levy, and yet Mr. Levy can not get a passport — oh, yes, I sup- 
pose he could manage one by diplomatic negotiations through the 
distinguished chairman of this committee, who would at once put 
himself in communication with the Russian ambassador, and he 
could get a passport. I have no doubt about that ; but by the ordinary 
and straight way of claiming his right as an American citizen he 
could not, although his ancestors came to New York in 1660 and 
never had the slightest thing to do with Russia. I can trace my an- 
cestry back — I was going to say 300 years; we can all trace our 
ancestry back 10,000 years, I have no doubt whatever, with only 
missing a few names — ^but in the last 300 years my ancestors have 
never touched Russia, and I do not believe they did at any time, and 
there are in the United States more than half a million Jews in 
that position, either natives of this country or naturalized, from 
states that never had the slightest relation with Russia. 

No question of expatriation, I hope, occurs with them. As for 
expatriation from Russia, I do not care how much expatriation would 
cost, I would be prepared to make the venture. It is a good country 
to be expatriated from. But what right have they to take our citi- 
zens, born here or naturalized here, having been born in England 
or France or Germany or Italy; or what right have they to have a 
fellow in New York who calls himself a consul or a consul general 
and runs an ofSce and declares in the face of common sense and in- 
ternational law that his office is Russian territory? It is not Rus- 
sian territory. It is territory that any constable can go in and dis- 
train on for the rent if the rent is not paid. 

There is only one piece of Russian sovereignty in the United States, 
and that is the Russian Embassy. I do not know that we are the 
happier for that. Besides these natives of the LTnited States and 
naturalized citizens who never had any relation with Russia, there 
are naturalized citizens of the United States who have been formally 
expatriated by the leave of Russia. If we grant Russia the most that 
she can claim under that treaty, so that article 10 is construed to 
mean what it does not mean, so that article 10 means what under the 
necessities of the case we may perhaps be compelled to say it does 
mean — well, if it means that, then there simply is no treaty covering 
the rights of nonexpatriated Russians. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 3*7 

If there is no treaty, then the policy of the United States, declared 
by long practice and by statute, that the human right of having 
control of your own body and soul, of moving where your spirit 
leads you to move, and, moreover, of adopting the United States as 
your home, with its larger opportunities for the development of soul 
and body, true statesmanship demands that, although we have no 
such treaty with Russia, we should have. It is fitting that our states- 
men should begin to negotiate such a treaty. No man will say nay. 

But that is not the question here, whether we ought to have a 
treaty covering the rights of naturalized citizens who were born 
in Russia. There ought to be such a treaty. The time has come for 
such a treaty. Our population of Russians who are citizens, and 
300,000 of whose children are native-born citizens of the United 
States, now requires that the Government heed their rights and urge 
a naturalization treaty with Russia. 

But in doing that we must not be diverted from the question of the 
treaty of 1832. No question of expatriation arose when that treaty 
was made. No debate was put in it. The}^ simply said — our Secre- 
taries of State have said it — j^ou have the correspondence before 
you; it will all be on your record when the real speech of the day 
by Mr. Marshall will be made — our secretaries have said, uniformly, 
that they insisted on the rights of all citizens under the treaty of 
1832, and when you analyze all that the Russian Government has 
said, that we have been able to see or to hear, when you analyze it 
all it amounts to this : " Yes ; we will not let a Jew come in here. 
What are you going to do about it? " That is all. 

There is absolutely no other answer ever given by the Russian 
Government except that. " What are you going to do about it ? " 

It is fitting that great States should move with slowness and 
dignity. Is there any degree of dignity that requires our motion to 
be longer than 40 years? 

In the long and weary history of Israel its wanderings in the great 
desert were limited to 40 j^ears, and if we of the United States with 
our additional rapid-transit facilities have stood it for 40 years, it 
is equivalent to 400 years of wandering in the desert. 

It is for that reason that we addressed the executive department 
three-and-a-half years ago, and we asked that an end be put to this 
discussion. In three-and-a-half years, with all the efforts of the 
President, with all the efforts of the Secretary of State, they have 
not been able to get the slightest answer from Russia, except, " What 
are you going to do about it?" And when we said that what we 
were going to do about it w^as that the United States Avould wash its 
hands of such treaty and not become an accomplice in the degradation 
of a class of its own citizens, they say, " You can not ajford to do it ; 
the treaty is for your benefit, not for ours. Your loss in money will 
be so great that you can not afford to do it and you will not do it." 

Now, let us look at that. The first proposition is that the treaty 
is for our benefit. You are all men of the world. A treaty is only 
a bargain. The difference between that and a private bargain of 
merchants is that the fellows who make it are a little more astute 
than the ordinary merchants. That is all. Do you believe that 
any treaty was ever made by two great States like the United States 
and Russia in which the advantages were all on one side and the 
disadvantages all on the other ? Do you believe it ? Is it credible ? 



38 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Is it not an insult to common sense ? Is it not an imputation on our 
own honor and dignity? What right have we to have on our 
statute books a treaty that gives us nothing but advantages and 
gives them nothing but disadvantages? Why, we would have over- 
reached them in that treaty. If we have such a treaty, for God's 
sake, let us abolish it at once. We do not want to have the reputa- 
tion in the world of having cheated an innocent State like Russia 
in a treaty. 

Well, they do not rely so much on that, but they say, " Look at the 
amount ! " Well, I will admit that the commerce between the United 
States and Russia is 1 per cent of the foreign commerce of the 
United States. That is true. I see in a late Russian paper appar- 
ently inspired by authority — and authority in St. Petersburg may 
mean the minister of the interior or a police spy, you can not tell 
which — that it says that it is more than 1 per cent. It may go up 
to 1.5 per cent. Well, it may, and I admit that there may be losses 
if we lose that treaty. That is true. But is commerce the creation 
of treaties or are treaties the creation of commerce ? 

Do you believe that the United States sells to Russia things that 
it needs in its own business and wants to keep ? Do you believe that 
Russia sells to the United States things that it wants to keep? Do 
you believe that Russia buys from the United States for mere gush- 
ing friendship things that it does not want to use? I do not. I 
believe traffic of States is governed by economic laws, that will not 
allow themselves in the ordinary course to be interfered with by any 
other consideration. I remember having read that in South Africa 
somebody, observing the natives, found that a certain tribe had a 
habit of eating dung, an unsavory habit. But the scientists who 
have examined it have found that salt was inaccessible to those 
people, and that salt is so necessary a constituent of human food that 
they sought it even in that loathesome form. 

That will give you an idea of the true power and spring and 
impulse and force of economic laws. Treaties do not make economic 
laws; economic laws make treaties. 

Undoubtedly economic laws may be interfered with by artificial 
political regulation. You can make an embargo and a nonintercourse 
act and you can perform all sorts of deviltries and interference with 
the progress of natural law; that you can do. And Russia may do 
that, and the United States may lose by denouncing this treaty. I 
do not 'stand here to deny that vindictiveness may cause Russia to 
take such measures that if we denounce this treaty there will be 
pecuniary loss to the United States. But admitting that, I am not in 
the position of the player who, failing to have an entirely full hand, 
attributed all the other trumps to the other man. 

I do not believe that Russia is so eager to have a quarrel with the 
United States as some of its semiofficial papers might seem to indi- 
cate or some of its loose mouthpieces twitter. I do not believe it. 
After all, the United States (we may say it modestly among our- 
selves) is a power of a certain respectability, and Russia, no matter 
what her Asiatic outlook is, Russians are like a great many ladies 
and gentlemen you know ; they like to stand well in society, and they 
have to stand well in society, and for Russia to have a denunciation 
of a treaty because we do not deem it consistent with ethical prin- 



TERMIJSTATION OV THE TREATY OF 1832. 39 

ciples to maintain it is to cast a slur upon Russia from which she 
will not recover. 

She is a bully nation. We have only to look to Russia for that 
and see one little American from this little town of Washington who 
is there in Teheran defying the power of that great Russian Czar 
and all his backers. 

Well, I do not care whether they are willing to forego social re- 
pute or whether they are unwilling, the question is up to us. I say, 
granted that we will lose by this, is it consistent with the honor and 
the dignity of the United States to adopt that low and vulgar esti- 
mate of our morals, our political morals and our social morals, that 
these Russian authorities would attribute to us, that all the great 
principles for which the Declaration of Independence, the founda- 
tions of our State constitutions, the foundation of our National Con- 
stitution, our whole social development, our abnormal growth, the 
complete secularity of our States, in which men of all beliefs are en- 
titled to join, each bearing only one relation, citzenship of the United 
States, whether we are willing to forego a declaration of that prin- 
ciple because it is going to cost us some money? That, gentlemen, 
is up to you. 

I can only say that if I had the decision of it I would let my right 
hand wither before I would sign a paper that would sell the United 
States, even if it is for H per cent of our foreign commerce. [Ap- 
plause.] 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, the next gentleman 
to address the committee will be Mr. Louis Marshall, a prominent 
member of the legal profession of the city of New York. 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS MARSHALL, ESQ., OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is not my inten- 
tion to make Avhat might be called a speech. What I desire to do is 
to present to the committee such facts and such legal considerations 
as appear to me to control the determination of the question as to 
whether or not the Congress of the United States shall now pass the 
pending resolutions, and especially the resolutions which were intro- 
duced on December 4, 1911, by the chairman of this committee, 
which is House joint resolution 166. 

As has been shown by the previous speakers, this question of the 
relations between the United States and Russia growing out of the 
treaty of 1832 is an old question. It has been pending before the 
various departments of this Government, before the Congress of the 
United States, for nearly 40 years. It has been one of the sore 
points, the sore spot, in our American citizenship. It has received 
attention from every President of the United States since Gen. Grant 
was the incumbent of that great office. It has received consideration 
from every Secretary of State and from many a session of Congress. 

I have here, for the purpose of making it a part of the record of 
these proceedings, a complete copy of every dispatch which has 
passed between our State Department and Russia, or between the 
Secretaries of State and the United States ministers and ambassa- 
dors at St. Petersburg, which is accessibJe. That is, every public 
dispatch. It will prove of great value in the further consideration 



40 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

of this question, because it indicates beyond all question, beyond all 
doubt, that the existence of an abuse has been recognized for 40 years. 

Our Government has insisted during all that period that Russia 
has violated her treaty, has demanded amendments, reform, change 
of interpretation, and a change in application, and to-day we are 
just as far advanced toward a remedy, so far as diplomatic en- 
deavors are concerned, as we were on the day when this proposition 
first came before the executive and legislative departments of our 
Government. 

Mr. Garner. May I ask you a question there ? 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. 

Mr. Garner. How do you account for the fact that this corre- 
spondence showing that Eussia has been violating the treaty for 40 
years has been under the observation of the Executive and Secre- 
taries of State, and that they have not given notice to abrogate this 
treaty ? 

Mr. Marshall. It is for the reason that public bodies move slowly 
and that there is always a tenderness on the part of one Government 
toward another. There is always a desire to bring about an entente 
cordiale without resorting to any so-called drastic measures. It is 
because we have received promise after promise from the Russian 
Government that the matter would be taken in hand and that the 
matter was receiving consideration, and that in due time the matter 
would be solved. But we have been deceived — fooled, perhaps, 
would be a better expression to describe the situation. 

Why, in 1881, in one of the communications received by so great 
a statesman and so ardent an American, so patriotic a citizen, as 
James G. Blaine, he was informed that the matter was receiving 
consideration and that a commission had been appointed by the 
Russian Government for the purpose of taking this matter in hand. 
That naturally was accepted at its face value, and consequently we 
waited until something might come from that commission. But as 
we change our administrations every four years, and as the men 
who are incumbents of the office of the State Department are not 
always fully cognizant of what has been done before, and as new 
theories may arise in regard to such matters, and a new promise may 
be made, that which is promised in 1881 is entirely lost sight of in 
1896 or 1906 or in some subsequent year. 

Russia has told us from time to time that they have had a com- 
mission for the purpose of dealing with this matter. The question 
was asked only a few years ago (in 1910), What is the commission 
which is now dealing with it? They were informed that it was the 
so-called Durnovo Commission. But an able American journalist 
who was in Russia made an investigation and he found that the 
Durnovo Commission had ceased to exist years before, and still the 
Durnovo Commission was stated in official communications to be 
studying this question for the purpose of eventually giving relief. 

Now, the " commissions *' have passed out of existence. Commis- 
sions have ceased to deal with the subject, and now, as has been 
said by the previous speaker, the fault is thrown upon the Duma. 
The first Duma certainly did not indicate any unwillingness to deal 
with old matters which relate to human rights. But that Duma was 
by the fiat of the Autocrat of all the Russias driven out of existence, 
and the men who signed the Viborg manfesto were thrown into jail 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 41 

and persecuted as being malefactors because they dared to stand up 
for human rights. The second Duma which was chosen under a 
different elective franchise than the first, one more satisfying to the 
behests of those in power, had a very short existence, and it in turn 
went out of existence and a new election law was prepared. The 
present Duma was elected under a law which was entirely satis- 
factory to the powers that are, and it has been permitted to exist, 
although its two predecessors were incontinently excluded from par- 
ticipation in the Government of Russia. 

So we now have the Duma as the scapegoat of this question. I 
do not know what the next excuse will be as we are now informed that 
the matter is again receiving consideration. The Congress of the 
United States has manifested an interest in this subject. The people 
of the United States from Maine to Mexico have been aroused about 
it. The press in every State of the Union speaks in one voice upon 
the subject of this outrage, this insult upon American citizenship. 
And now Eussia is prepared once more it says to take ut) the mat- 
ter and to treat upon the subject. 

Well, now, we are rather tired of that method of procedure. We, 
who were children when this question first came up, are now becoming 
gray-haired men. We have felt that the best legacy we can leave to 
our children is that of an unimpaired American citizenship. But as 
it is to-day we find that American citizens are divided into two 
classes — Americans and Jews — and we feel that we can not longer 
rest content with such a classification and that the responsibility for 
that classification does not longer rest with Russia, but it rests upon 
the Congress of the United States. Because so long as we shall per- 
mit this distinction to be made, so long as we shall permit this dis- 
crimination and this classification without taking action to put an 
end to it, we acquiesce in it and we become parties to it, and there- 
fore whatever is now pending is the result of the concurrence and 
consent of the Congress of the United States. 

Mr. Garner. May I ask you a question in that connection ? 

Mr. Marshall, Certainly. 

Mr. Garner. It Avill not disturb you ? 

Mr. Marshall. Not at all. 

Mr. Garner. Could not the President of the United States notify 
the Russian Government, without the action of Congress, that we 
want to abrogate this treaty ? 

Mr. Marshall. I think if you will permit me to take up that ques- 
tion now I will take it up, because I am perfectly willing to speak 
in a disjointed manner. 

Mr. Garner. I want to know whether the President has not the 
power under the Constitution to notify Russia that we propose to 
abrogate the treaty. 

The Chairman. I understand that Mr. Marshall is coming to that 
question later. 

Mr. Marshall. Well, I am here simply to try to give you what 
information I can and not to make any speech, and I might as well 
take that point up now. 

Mr. Garner. I do not want to disturb your line of argument. 

Mr. Marshall. No ; it will not disturb me at all. 



42 TERMINATION" OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

The Chairman. If you prefer to go on with your argument in 
the manner in which you have planned it 

Mr. Marshall (interposing). No; I think it is all right to take 
up this question at this point. 

This brings us really to the question that was asked by Congress- 
man Garner of Mr. McAdoo, as to what the power of Congress is in 
the matter, and I have prepared a short memorandum of that ques- 
tion to indicate what the state of the law is as to who really has the 
right to abrogate a treaty. 
,7 I must confess that when the matter first came to my attention I 
had an idea that the executive department had ample power to deal 
with the matter. As I have studied the matter more, I believe that 
the power rests in Congress, although there are precedents to in- 
dicate that on several occasions the President of the United States 
has given notice of the abrogation of a treaty, yet in almost every 
case that was followed by a joint resolution of the Senate and House 
of Eepresentatives ratifying and confirming what he had done. But 
that the proper procedure is action by joint resolution of Congress 
I have no doubt. 

Now, in a recent article on this subject, which has just appeared in 
the thirty-eighth volume of the Encyclopedia of Law and Procedure, 
written by Mr. Justice Day, of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and by Mr. Charles Henry Butler, who is the reporter of the 
Supreme Court of the United States and the learned author of The 
Treaty Making Power of the United States, this subject of the 
abrogation and termination of treaties is stated as follows. It is so 
succinctly stated that I take the liberty of reading from that au- 
thority. It is one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United 
States who gives the support of his great name to this statement. 

Since a treaty is a contract, its provisions should be faithfully observed 
by each of the contracting parties and not disregarded or abrogated except for 
good and sufficient reason ; but although the treaty is on its face of indefinite 
duration, circumstances and conditions may arise which vpill justify one of 
of the parties in disregarding or abrogating it, as vs^here there has been a 
failure of consideration, where the state of things which was the basis of the 
treaty and one of its tacit conditions no longer exists, or where there has 
been such a change of circumstances as to make its performance impossible 
or impracticable. So also where one of the parties violates or neglects or 
refuses to perform the conditions of the treaty, the other may treat the obliga- 
tion as terminated, but a violation of one party does not of itself terminate or 
render void the treaty, but merely makes it voidable at the option of the other 
party. Treaties can be modified, annulled, or abrogated only by those in whom 
such authority is vested, and not by the courts. In the United States, although 
the treaty-making power is vested in the President with the consent and ap- 
proval of the Senate, yet as an act of Congress is equally the law of the land, 
and in case of conflict will control a prior treaty, it is possible for Congress to 
directly abrogate or indirectly render ineffective the provisions of any treaty. 
This it may do by a formal act or resolution directly abrogating the treaty, 
or indirectly by the enactment of legislation which is in conflict with the pro- 
visions of the treaty, or, where the treaty is not self-executing, by failure to 
enact legislation necessary to carry it into effect, or by a declaration of war. 

In volume 2 of his work on The Treaty-Making Power of the 
TJnited States, Mr. Butler treats of the various mxcthods of the abro- 
gation of treaties : 

Sec. 384. Abrogation of treaties, various methods. — In the cases cited which 
have involved treaty stipulations and Federal statutes, treaties have either 
been, oi- have not been, carried into effect by subsequent legislation of Congress ■ 
or statutes subsequently passed in conflict with treaties have been held to be 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 43 

constitutional, and to have superseded or modified tlie treatj', although in many 
instances clearly in violation of the stipulations therein contained. There are 
other instances, however, in which the court has held that the treaty is not 
superseded or modified, but is clearly abrogated and ceases to bind either nation 
or the citizens and inhabitants thereof. Treaties which expressly so provide 
may expire by limitation of time, determined by the treaty itself ; they may also 
be abrogated, so far as the United States is concerned, by congressional action 
in several different methods. 

First, Either by a formal resolution or act of both Houses of Congress, ap- 
proved by the President, or, in case of his refusal to approve it, passed over his 
veto by two-thirds of both Houses, in which case it becomes the latest ex- 
pression of the legislative department of the Government, and, therefore, the 
supreme law of the land, and the executive department is bound to carry out 
the wishes of the Legislature in express terms. 

Second. By legislation, not abrogating the treaty in terms, but terminating 
the relations existing thereunder, or rendering them impossible of continuance, 
by enacting legislation hostile thereto, or conflicting therewith, and which may 
supersede the treaty as to the special stipulations affected, or in effect abrogate 
it altogether. 

Third. By legislation which, while it does not directly, in terms, abrogate 
the treaty, either in whole or in part, or by direct words suspend the operation 
of any of the provisions, so conflicts therewith that the doctrine of repeal by 
implication applies thereto as it would to statutory provisions similarly af- 
fected ; it having been held by the Supreme Court that when a statute can not 
be rationally construed without repealing conflicting clauses of a previously 
existing treaty, the treaty must fall and the statute must remain as the latest 
expression of the legislative will. 

Fourth. By a declaration of war, in which case treaties with the hostile power 
are either by force of the declaration suspended during the war or abrogated 
altogether. 

The instances given in the footnotes hereto, in which these various methods 
of abrogating treaties in whole or in part have been adopted, are only a few 
instances, but they illustrate the practical application of each rule. 

The effect of the abrogation of a tieaty on private rights created or affected 
by the treaty is a matter of judicial determination. 

Sec. 385. Direct abrogation by congressional action. — Congress has on more 
than one occasion exerted its legislative power to abrogate treaties and terminate 
the relations established thereby. Several instances are given in the notes to 
this section; one of the earliest cases being in 1800, when the treaties with 
France were abrogated on account of the unfriendly treatment of our merchant 
vessels by that power. In 18S3, after the payment of the Halifax award, al- 
ready referred to in this chapter, Congress, by resolution, directed the abroga- 
tion of those clauses of the treaty of Washington of 1871 with Great Britain, 
which related to fisheries and exportation and importation of fish products. 
In this case there was an undoubted right to abrogate the treaties, as no perma- 
nent relations or vested interests were involved or affected. 

Now, for the purpose of giving furrher examples 

Mr. Garner (interposing). I do not suppose anyone questions the 
authority of Congress to abrogate a treaty, but I think by referring 
to those authorities you cite as a statement of Mr. Justice Day, as 
well as Mr. Butler, you will see where they discuss the authority of 
Congress to do it and conclude that it has the authority. 

Mr. Marshall,. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. But the question I asked is. Does not the President 
hav^ the authority to abrogate this treaty, and could he not do so 
under this vast amount of information that he has had for the last 
40 years? Could not any one of the Presidents who occupied the 
"White House during that time have abrogated this treaty ? 

Mr. Cooper. I have not the exact phraseology of the Constitution 
at hand, but it is substantially this: That this Constitution and 
treaties made thereunder and laws enacted by Congress in pursuance 
thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. A treaty is a law. It 



44 TERMHiTATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

is a statute, enacted in a certain way, and can be abrogated by a 
statute passed by Congress. Now, then, if a treaty is a law, how 
can the President of the United States abrogate it? 

Mr. Foster. Ought he to have the power? 

Mr. Cooper. Ought he to have the power? 

Mr. Garner. There are at least 20 precedents where the Presidents 
of the United States have done it. 

Mr. Cooper. As you are a Democrat, are you in favor of the Presi- 
dent of the United States having power to set aside a law of the 
United States? 

Mr. Garner. I most certainly am not; but I am speaking of his 
authority under the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Marshall. I do not wish to take any side on that question, 
because we are now before Congress, which undoubtedly has the 
power, and whatever has been done in the past is merely historical 
and leads up to this present and important historic moment. 

Now, as to the law, I think Congressman Cooper has stated the law 
pretty clearly. 

I will read now from the Head Money cases (112 U. S., 598), where 
Mr. Justice Miller said : 

A treaty, then, is a law of the land as an act of Congress is whenever its 
provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or sub- 
ject may be determined. And when such rights are of a nature to be enforced 
in a court of justice, that court resorts to the treaty for a rule of decision 
for the case before it as it would to a statute. 

But even in this aspect of the case there is nothing in this law which mal?es 
it irrepealable or unchangeable. The Constitution gives it no superiority over 
an act of Congress in this respect, which may be repealed or modified by 
an act of a later date. Nor is there anything in its essential character, or in 
the branches of the Government by which the treaty is made, which gives it 
this superior sanctity. 

A treaty is made by the President and the Senate. Statutes are made by 
the President, the Senate, and House of Representatives. The addition of the 
latter body to the other two in making a law certainly does not render it less 
entitled to respect in the matter of its repeal or modification than a treaty 
made by the other two. If there be any difference in this regard it would 
seem to be in favor of an act in which all three of the bodies participate. And 
such is. in fact, the case in a declaration of war, which must be made by 
Congress, and which, when made, usually suspends or destroys existing treaties 
between the nations thus at war. 

In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United 
States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance 
in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass 
for its enforcement, modification, or repeal. 

The doctrine was reiterated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Field in 
Whitney -y. Robertson (124 U. S., 190). 

It was redeclared by the same learned justice in the Chinese-exclu- 
sion act (130 U. S., 600, 601) : 

The effect of legislation upon conflicting treaty stipulations was elaborately 
considered in the Head Money cases, and it was there adjudged " that so far as 
a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the 
subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such 
acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal." (112 
U. S., 580, 599.) This doctrine was affirmed and followed in Whitney v. Rob- 
ertson (124 U. S., 190, 195). It will not be presumed that the legislative depart- 
ment of the Government will lightly pass laws which are in conflict with the 
treaties of the country, but that circumstances may arise which would not only 
justify the Government in disi-egarding their stipulations, but demand in the 
interests of the country that it should do so there can be no question. Unex- 
pected events may call for a change in the policy of the country. Neglect or vio- 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 45 

lation of stipulations on the part of the other contracting party may require 
corresponding action on our part. When a reciprocal engagement is not car- 
ried out by one of the contracting parties the other may also decline to keep 
the corresponding engagement. In 1798 the conduct toward this country of the 
Government of Prance was of such a character that Congress declared that 
the United States were freed and exonerated from the stipulations of previous 
treaties with that country. Its act on the subject was as follows : 

AN ACT To declare the treaties heretofore concluded with Prance no longer obligatory 

on the United States. 

" Whereas the treaties concluded between the United States and France have 

been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government and the just 

claims of the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have 

been refused and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all 

complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity, and 

whereas under authority of the French Government there is yet pursued 

against the United States a system of predatory violence, infracting the said 

treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation : 

"Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 

States of America in Congress assemUed, That the United States are of right 

freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties and of the consular 

convention heretofore concluded between the United States and France and 

that the same shall not be henceforth regarded as legally obligatory on the 

Government or citizens of the United States." (1 Stat. 578, c. 67.) 

This act, as seen, applied in terms only to the future. Of course whatever 
of a permanent character had been executed or vested under the treaties was 
not affected by it. In that respect the abrogation of the obligation of a treaty 
operates, like the repeal of a law, only upon the future, leaving transactions 
executed under it to stand unaffected. The validity of this legislative release 
from the stipulations of the treaties was, of course, not a matter for judicial 
cognizance. 

The same doctrine has been laid down in other cases. I will not 
weary you by reading the citations, but the proposition is absolutely 
uncontrovertible that the power is vested in Congress to repeal a 
treaty. There is a doubt, at any rate, as to whether the President 
would have that power. I know of only one case where the President 
has exercised the power without having it followed by an act of ratifi- 
cation by Congress. 

Mr. Levy. Would not the President have the authority under Mr. 
Goldf ogle's former resolution? 
- Mr. Marshall. No ; I think not. 

Mr. Levy. What do you say about that? 

Mr. Marshall. I will read that in a moment. As originally in- 
troduced, it would probably have given the power. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Yes. The entire resolution, as introduced in 1909, 
was not adopted. I had incorporated in that resolution a clause pro- 
viding for the abrogation of the treaty in the event Russia did not 
accede to our demand. The abrogation clause was not reported, but 
the balance of that joint resolution passed both Houses and was ap- 
proved by the President. 

Mr. Marshall. ISTow, coming to the precedent, I have called atten- 
tion to the abrogation of treaties by the President and referred to 
the resolution of 1798. 

There, gentlemen, you will remember, the treaty was abrogated by 
a joint resolution adopted by both Houses of Congress on the ground 
that France had interferred with our vessels and had violated its 
treaty with the United States. You will remember when this took 
place in 1798, when we were but a handful of people, not more than 
4,000,000 people in the United States, France had been not a mythical 



46 , TEEMINATIOOSr OP THE TEEATY OP 1832. 

friend of the United States, but a real and actual friend of the 
United States, without whose assistance we might not have won our 
independence. And yet at that time there was so much patriotism 
in the United States that, even though it was France that was violat- 
ing the treaty. Congress saw fit to pass a joint resolution abrogating 
that treaty, and even though there was not in that treaty, as there 
is in this treaty of 1832, a provision permitting either party to ter- 
minate it upon one year's notice. It was, as far as its terms were 
concerned, a perpetual treaty. Listen to what Congress said at that 
time. It was entitled "An act to declare the treaties heretofore con- 
cluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States," 

Whereas^ the treaties concluded between tbe United States and France have 
been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government, and the just 
claims of the United States for the reparation of the injuries so committed 
have been refused, and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of 
all complaints between the two Nations have been repelled with indignity ; 
and whereas, under authority of the French Government, there is yet pursued 
against the IJnited States a system of predatory violence, infracting the said 
treaties and hostile to the laws of a free and independent Nation : 
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the United States are of right freed 
and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties and of the consular con- 
vention heretofore concluded between the United States and France; and that 
the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Govern- 
ment or citizens of the United States. 
Approved, July, 1798, 

That was over 113 years ago. 

Mr. Garner. Since that time — if you have had occasion to look 
up all these precedents — has Congress passed any initiative legisla- 
tion before the President acted? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir; I think so, 

Mr. Garner. I wish you would put in the record a list of the cases 
where Congress first acted, and then a list of the cases where the 
President first acted, so we may draw a conclusion as to what the 
formal precedent has been, whether Congress should act first or the 
President should act first. 

Mr. Marshall. I shall do that now. I have taken from the publi- 
cation of Congress, entitled "A Compilation of Treaties between 
the United States and Other Powers, 1889," apppendix pages 1232 
to 1237, a list of the abrogated and suspended treaties, which I treat 
under various heads. The first was where there was nothing in the 
terms of the treaty which permitted the treaty to be terminated at 
a particular period. I will now come to the next head, " Treaties 
terminated in consequence of notice given in accordance with the 
terms of the treaty." I believe in everj'^ one of these instances there 
was a joint resolution passed by Congress to that effect. I shall 
read some of the resolutions on that subject, which I am happy to 
say form a precise precedent as to form for the resolution which Mr. 
Sulzer has introduced, and to which I am now addressing myself. 
Here is a list. It is quite a long one : 

I. Treaties abrogated by act of Congress. — ^Alliance with France, 1778 ; amity 
and commerce with France, 1778; act separate and secret with France, 1778; 
consular convention with France, 1788. The circumstances which led to the 
act of Congress of July 7, 179S, annulling these treaties are stated under the 
title " France." This act of Congress was the subject of some discussion be- 

'Stat. L., 578. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832, 47 

tweeu the plenipotentiaries who negotiated tlie convention of ISOO. Tlie latter 
convention contained originallj^ a statement that the plenipotentiaries could not 
agree respecting these treaties, and that the parties should negotiate further 
upon the subject. The Senate, in consenting to the ratification, expunged that 
article. Bonapare accepted this action of the Senate : " Provided, That by this 
retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the 
object of the said article." This was explained by the American plenipoten- 
tiary, Murray, as a " wish to get rid of both the claim to treaties and indem- 
nities." In this sense it was accepted in its turn by the Senate, and thus the 
question was laid at rest, and has not been mooted since. 

III. Treaties terminated in consequence of notice given in accordance with 
the provisions of the treaty. — Belgium, treaty of 1845, terminated August 20, 
3858; Belgium, treaty of 1858, terminated July 1, 1875; Belgium, ti'eaties of 
1868, relating to consuls and trade-marks, terminated January 1, 1880; Brazil, 
treaty of 3S2S, terminated December 12, 1841; Chile, treaty of 1832, terminated 
January 20, 3850; Chile, treaty of 1833, terminated January 20, 1850; Great 
Britain, treaty of 1854, terminated March 17, 1866; Great Britain, articles 18, 
39, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, and 32 of treaty of May 8, 1871, terminated July 
1, 1885 ; Guatemala, treaty of 1849, terminated November 4, 1874 ; Italy, con- 
sular treaty of 1868, terminated September 17, 1878; Mexico, treaty of amity, 
commerce, and navigation of April 5, 1831, and the additional article thereto. 
The operation of this treaty was suspended by war between the parties in 
1846-47, but was revived with some exceptions by Article 17 of the treaty of 
February 2, 1848. Article 33 was abrogated by the second article of the treaty 
of December 30, 1853, and the entire treaty was finally terminated November 30, 
1881, by virtue of notice given by Mexico; Mexico, naturalization treaty of July 
10, 1868, terminated February 11, 1882 ; Ottoman Porte, commerce and naviga- 
tion of Fel)ruary 25, 1862. gee notes : " Ottoman Porte ; " Peru, treaties of 
1851 and of 1857, terminated December 9, 1863; Peru, treaty of friendship, 
cojumerce, and navigation of Seijtember 6, ISTO, and of extradition of Septem- 
ber 12, 1870, were terminated siarch 31, 1866 ; Venezuela, treaty of 1836, ter- 
minated January 3, 1851; Venezuela, treaty of 1860, terminated October 22, 
1870. 

Mr. Garner. Now, will you put in the record the treaties the abro- 
gation of which Yv^as first initiated by the President, then confirmed 
by act of Congress? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. I shall read rapidly a few of those cases, 
the cases where there was an abrogation of a treaty by joint resolu- 
tion authorizing or requesting the President to act. I will read first 
the resolution providing for the termination of the reciprocity treaty 
of the 5th of June, 1854, between the United States and Great Brit- 
ain, to be found in the Thirtv-eighth Congress, second session, Jan- 
uary 18, 1865, resolution No. "6 (13 Stat. L., p. 566). It is entitled, 
" Joint resolution providing for the termination of the reciprocity 
treaty of June 5. 1854, between the United States and' Great 
Britain " : 

V/hereas it is provided in the reciprocity treaty concluded at Washington the 
fifth of June, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, between the United Slates of 
the one part and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the 
other part that this treaty " shall remain in force for ten years from the 
date at which it may come into operation, and further until the expiration of 
twelve mouths after either of the high contracting parties shall give notice 
to the other of its wish to terminate the same " ; and whereas it appears by a 
proclamation of the President of the United States, bearing date sixteenth of 
March, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, that the treaty came into operation on 
that day ; and whereas, further, it is no longer for the interests of the United 
States to continue the same in force : Therefore, 

Resolved l)y tlie Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assemhled, That notice be given of the termination of 
the reciprocity treaty, according to the provision therein contained for the 
termination of the same; and the President of the United States is hereby 

19831—11 4 



48 TEEMHsrATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

charged witli the comniunication of such notice to the Government of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 
Approved January 18, 1S65. 

I next have the resolution for the termination of the treaty of the 
17th of July, 1858, with Belgium, by joint resolution of June 17, 
1874, to be found in Volume XVIII, Statutes at Large, page 287, 
Forty-third Congress, first session, joint resolution No. 10. 

JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for the termination of tlie treaty between the United 
States and His Majesty, the King of the Belgians, concluded at Washington, July seven- 
teenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight. 

Whereas it is provided by the seventeenth article of the treaty between the 
United States of America, on the one part, and His Majesty, the King of 
the Belgians, on the other part, concluded at Washington on the seventeenth 
day of July anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, that " the present 
treaty shall be in force during ten years from the date of the exchange of 
ratifications, and until the expiration of twelve months after either of the 
high contracting parties shall have announced to the other its intention to 
terminate the operation thereof, each party reserving to itself the right of 
making such declaration to the other at the end of the ten years above men- 
tioned, and it is agreed that, after the expiration of the twelve months pro- 
longation accorded on both sides, this treaty and all its stipulations shall 
cease to be of force," and 
Whereas it is no longer for the interest of the United States to continue said 
treaty in force : Therefore, 

Resolved &?/ the Senate and House of liepresentatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of said 
treaty, according to the provisions of the same seventeenth article thereof for 
such termination, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized 
to communicate such notice to the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium. 
Approved June 17, 1874. 

I have already referred to the termination of certain provisions of 
the treaty of Washington which was entered into in 1871 between the 
United States and Great Britain. That was terminated by a joint 
resolution of March 3, 1883, which is to be found in volume 22 of the 
Statutes at Large, page 641. 

That practically adopted the same phraseology as the resolutions 
to which I have already referred, and I could follow that up by other 
similar cases. I do not wish to weary the gentlemen of the committee 
by a mere reiteration of the language, but that is the accepted form 
which has been adopted where Congress has seen fit to exercise its 
constitutional powers of abrogating a treaty ; in other words, repeal- 
ing what is a part of the law of the land. 

Now, I have found — I say I have found — I should say those who 
have cooperated with me in this matter have been asked to look for 
various precedents, and we have been able to find but a single case 
where the President himself initiated the proceedings, and that was 
by notice, subsequently adopted and ratified by joint resolution. A 
resolution was adopted on the 9th of February, 1865, and reads as 
follows. It related to the regulation of the naval force on the Great 
Lakes. You will find it in volume 13, part 2, page 568 of the Stat- 
utes at Large. It reads as follows: 

JOINT RESOLUTION To terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regu- 
lating the navel force on the Lakes. 

Whereas the United States, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland, of the other part, by a treaty bearing date April, eighteen 
hundred and seventeen, here regulates the naval force upon the Lakes, and it 
was further pointed out that if either party shall hereafter be desirous of 
annulling this stipulation and should give notice to that effect to the other 
party it shall cease to be binding after the expiration of six months from the 
date of such notice; and 



TERMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 49 

Whereas the peace of our frontier is now endangered by hostile expedition 
against the commerce of the Lakes, and by other acts of lawless persons, 
which the naval force of the two countries, allowed by the existing treaty, 
may be insufficient to prevent ; and 
Whereas, further, the President of the United States has proceeded to give the 
notice required for the termination of the treaty by a communication which 
took effect on the twenty-third day of November, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
four; therefore. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States in Congress assembled, That the notice given by the President of the 
United States to the Government of Great Britain and Ireland to terminate the 
treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regulating the naval force upon the 
Lakes, is hereby adopted and ratified as if the same had been authorized by 
Congress. 
Approved February 9, 1865. 

Now, I have other examples where treaties have been repealed by 
joint resolution at the request or suggestion of the President. 

I have here the treaty with regard to the occupation of Oregon 
by the United States and Great Britain, which led to President 
Polk's message of December 2, 1845, to request Congress to give him 
the power, by appropriate legislation, to give Great Britain the one 
year's notice of a desire to terminate the treaty, as required by the 
provisions of that treaty. That request was made. 

I have also the resolution of the Senate when the President was 
authorized to give notice, but I do not find more than one instance 
of that kind. 

So we have here examples of the various methods that have been 
employed for the abrogation of treaties and to enforce them. It 
has been recognized that Congress is the real power for the abroga- 
tion of a treaty, although Congress might be moved to act either by 
communication from the President requesting action or advising ac- 
tion or it might itself initiate the proceedings by passing a joint 
resolution, which would then go to the President, and if he did not 
approve could be passed over the President's veto by a vote of two- 
thirds of the Members of both Houses of Congress. 

Mr. Cooper. Is Mr. Marshall authorized to print the list of those 
instances which he has not read ? 

The Chairman. Yes. (See Appendix III, p. 295, following.) 

Mr. Marshall. I am reminded of the fact that in 1856 the ques- 
tion arose as to whether the Senate alone has the right to terminate 
a treaty because of the fact that the President, with the consent of the 
Senate — the joint treaty-making power — in 1856, as I have said, it 
was contended by some that the Senate alone would have the right 
to abrogate a treaty. But it was declared it had no right alone to 
abrogate a treaty and that the cooperation of the House of Repre- 
sentatives was necessary, and Charles Sumner took very strong 
ground upon that subject in a resolution which he introduced in that 
year. That is also upon the memorandum which I will hand in. So 
it will be unnecessary to weary you with the recital of the contents of 
that resolution. 

Having reached the proposition, the point, that the power to ter- 
minate this treaty is unquestionably lodged in Congress, I now come 
back once more to the proposition as to whether or not facts have 
been presented to Congress which will require the exercise of that 
undoubted power or whether or not Congress is still willing to wait 



50 TEKMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 

the weary years until autocratic Eussia will of its own accord grant 
the relief which we have within our power to secure for ourselves 
and which the situation imperatively demands we should exercise. 

Mr. Foster. I would like to hear on that point in regards to our 
having the power, as I understand you, not merely to secure the pas- 
sage of this resolution abrogating the treaty, but I understood you 
to say that we have the power to go further to grant relief? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. The relief is a simple thing. I do not care 
whether I ever see Russia. Perhaps there are a m^illion others who 
are of the same mind. But I am a citizen of the United States 

Mr. Foster (interposing). We all recognize that, I think everyone 
does. 

Mr. Marshall. Then that is all the Congress has power to do. 
Congress has no power by right of mandamus, after this treaty has 
been abrogated, to compel Russia to open its doors and let us in. 

Mr. Foster. All you mean, then, is to abrogate the treaty ? 

Mr. Marshall. To abrogate the treaty and set us right in the eyes 
of the American people. 

Mr, Flood. You think that ultimately will accomplish the desired 
result ? 

Mr. Marshall. The desired result is to prevent further discrimina- 
tion among the citizens of the United States, not by Russia but by 
the United States itself. 

Mr. Legare. In what way, in your opinion, could Russia retaliate ; 
what effect would it have on the Jewish citizenship in Russia ? 

Mr. Marshall. The situation in Russia to-day so far as the Jews 
are concerned is worse than it ever has been in the history of Russia. 

Mr, Legare. It could not be worse, in your opinion ? 

Mr. Marshall. It could not be worse. There is not a lower depth 
than that in which they find them^selves to-day. Dante's Inferno had 
limits, but I think the limits of the inferno of Russia are lower than 
those of Dante's Inferno. If you will read an article published in 
the New York Times of yesterday, by Herman Bernstein, in which 
he quotes from a distinguished Russian about the condition of the 
Jews in Russia, you will have all the evidence you desire on that point, 

Mr. Curley. I take it from your remarks that you believe the 
United States occupies a unique position among the nations,_ in this 
respect, that the United States is more necessary to Russia than 
Russia or any other nation is to the United States ? 

]Mr, Marshall, I certainly believe that. But we occupy this 
unique position: We have never hesitated in the past to do what is 
right when American citizenship has been involved. We have never 
wavered. Even in the case of Martin Koszta, who was not even a 
naturalized citizen, we insisted upon the protection of his rights 
against a foreign country, and so far as this question is concerned, 
so far as it relates to the action of Congress, the real point is whether 
or not Congress will continue to permit a large section of the Ameri- 
can people to remain under civil disabilities. That is the question. 

Mr, Garner. In other words, Mr. Marshall, is not this it, in effect, 
that it is a mere question of whether we will give up 1 or 1^ per cent 
of commerce in behalf of the citizenship of this Nation? It is the 
man against the dollar, is it not ? 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 51 

Mr. Marshall. Precisely. That was the expression used, I am 
greatly delighted to say, by Mr. Cooper, when we were here in Feb- 
ruary last. 

Mr, Garner. I want to congratulate New York and Philadelphia. 
I do not loiow whether you have had mass meetings anywhere else — 
upon putting the man ahead of the dollar. [Applause.] 

Mr. Marshall. I feel it is the American people who are to be con- 
gratulated, who have responded to that call. 

Mr. Cooper. Do you think that if Russia should demand of Ameri- 
can citizens going over there with passports to know whether 
they were Protestants, whether they were Baptists or Catholics or 
Presb3''terians or Methodists, that there would be any question about 
Congress passing these resolutions ? 

Mr. Marshall. Not for a moment. 

Mr. Kendall. Have jou some concrete instances of discrimina- 
tion? 

Mr. Marshall. I can give them to you by the dozen. I will at 
this moment stop long enough to ask two gentlemen on our com- 
mittee to give their experiences during this last year. I will first 
call on Mr. Cutler, of Providence, E. I. 

STATEMEIJT OF HON. HAREY CUTLER, OF PROVIDENCE, R. I. 

Mr. Marshall. I will ask you where you reside ? 

Mr. Cutler. Providence, R. I. 

Mr. Marshall. What is your occupation? 

Mr. Cutler. Manufacturing jeweler, 

Mr. Marshall. Do you hold any public office in the State of Rhode 
Island? 

Mr. Cutler. I am a member of the house of representatives, and 
have been for the past three years. 

Mr. Marshall. Are you a member of the State militia ? 

Mr. Cutler. I have the honor of being lieutenant colonel in the 
First Light Infantry. 

Mr. Marshall. How many years have you resided in this country ? 

Mr. Cutler. About 27 years. 

Mr. Marshall. How old were you when you first came to this 
country ? 

Mr. Cutler. I was a little less than 9 years of age. 

Mr. Marshall. Did you during this present year attempt to go 
to Russia and attempt to get a passport viseed ? 

Mr. Cutler. I attempted to have a passport viseed, and I could 
give you the circumstances in connection therewith. 

Mr. Marshall. Please give the circumstances to the committee. 

Mr. Cutler. Having been appointed by his Honor, the mayor of 
the city, to represent the governor, with the delegation of the Boston 
Chamber of Commerce in its travels through Europe for the purpose 
of studying civil and business conditions there and the extension of 
an invitation to the boards of trade and the chambers of commerce 
of Europe to meet in Boston subsequently, I conceived the idea that 
it would be a most appropriate time, if possible, to visit my native 
country and find out whether there was anything left of an estate 
in which I might have an interest, I having left Russia during the 
massacres of 1882, and not having any information in regard to this 



52 TERMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OE 1832. 

estate or my relations since then. I also hoped to find out some- 
thing about my relatives and to find out whether any of them are 
still alive. Then, also, I thought there might be an opportunity to 
combine business with the trip. Thereupon, I asked for a passport, 
through the State Department, in the regular method, and received 
such a passport, which I will produce [producing passport]. The 
day prior to sailing I visited the Kussian consul at New York and 
appeared before the clerk of the consulate, through an error having 
gone into the private apartment or residence of Baron Schlippen- 
bach, the consul general, owing to the fact that there was no sign 
showing just where the office was. He cordially met me and told 
me to go below where the office was. I appeared before the clerk 
and handed him my passport and asked for its vise. He then handed 
me an application, which I will file with the committee, which reads 
as follows : 

ApplicaMon for vise of a foreign passport for Russia. 

Name Where boru Religion Business or tourist 

Have you been a citizen or subject of any other country? 

Signature 

New Torli 

Upon receiving this application I filled in the name and where I 
was born, which was Elizabeth grad, Kussia, but I refused to fill in 
the line with regard to my religion. He then abruptly told me that 
I must fill it in, that otherwise the vise would not be considered. 
I denied his right to put. me through this religious inquisition, being 
an American citizen and on American soil. The clerk then con- 
ferred with Baron Schlippenbach, and he informed me that I must 
fill in the line in regard to my religion. 

Mr. Marshall. Who is Baron Schlippenbach ? 

Mr. Cutler. Baron Schlippenbach is the consul general of Rus- 
sia in the city of New York. - The question arose as to whether I 
would go as a tourist or on business, and I decided that I would go 
on business. During the course of the conversation, having in- 
formed Baron Schlippenbach and the clerk that I was a manu- 
facturer, representing my own firm, and that I held these various 
commissions, he asked me to have affidavits made to that effect, and 
suggested the name of a gentleman, Mr. Polevoy, a Eussian attor- 
ney, who could make these affidavits for me. I told him that the 
time w^as short and that I was sailing the following day, and that 
I understood his office closed early in the afternoon, and that I did 
not think I could go there. He thereupon said if I would file with 
him a copy of my commission from the governor and the mayor, 
which I could do through this attorney, then my passport would be 
viseed for commercial purposes only, giving me the right of travel 
for six months. Upon further reflection, and a second call, I met 
Baron Schlippenbach, in company with another gentleman, present 
here to-day, Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, and I told him I had con- 
sidered it fully and I had decided that I would not travel in Russia 
for business purposes, but only for tourist purposes, and that I 
would not be a party to the inquisition as to the religious faith I 
held. He told me I must answer that question before he could vise 
the passport or before a vise would be considered. 



TERMIISrATION" OF THE TEE AT Y OF 1832. 53 

I told him that I felt that I would be violating my oath of alle- 
giance as a citizen of the United States, my oath of allegiance as a mem- 
ber of the House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island, 
and my oath of allegiance as a member of the State militia, and also 
the State constitution of the State of Rhode Island and the con- 
stitution of the State of New York, if I was accessory to this dis- 
crimination, because it was not in harmony with the fundamental 
principles of this Government or any of the sovereign States of the 
Government, and therefore I could not be a part^y^ to that act. He 
told me he could not help that ; that he was acting under instructions 
from his Government. All of this was in most cordial form. Later 
the question having arisen as to whether I was on American soil 
and an American citizen, he having denied that, sajdng that the 
moment I entered the Russian consulate 1 was on Russian soil. Dr. 
Friedenwald properly replied to him that that only applied to the 
embassy in Washington and not to any consulate; but he insisted 
that that was his construction of the matter. He then turned to me 
and said, " Mr. Cutler, you were born in Russia ? " I replied, " I 
was." He said, " Did you ask Russia's permission to become a citi- 
zen of the United States ? " I told him no, and that I came here at 
an age when I was not my own free agent, that I was expatriated 
by the condition of the time and by reason of the massacres of 1882, 
that I was less than 9 years old at the time I came to this country. 

Mr. Marshall. Did your father come with you? 

Mr. Cutler. My father did not come with me; no. I am sorry 
to have to go into these personal matters, and I hope you will excuse 
me, but I might say that my father was a merchant in the city of 
Elizabethgrad, and was in partners with a Christian friend. His 
partner came to us on the night of the massacre, and our Christian 
neighbors offered to hide us in the cellar upon their fields — not in 
their house, but in the cellar upon the fields — and our friend had 
placed Christian emblems upon the doors and windows of his home, 
such as crucifixes and ikons and pictures of the Madonna, to mis- 
lead the rabble and the Cossacks. Mj father armed himself, kissecl 
us good-bye, and went to defend his place of business. That was 
the last I have ever seen of my father. Naturally, subsequently fol- 
lowed the emigration to this country. 

The Chairman. Was your father massacred? 

Mr. Cutler. I do not think so, but I have no further knowledge 
of him. One of the matters that I wanted to investigate in Russia 
was to try to find out what became of him. 

The Chairman. You liave never heard from him since that day 
i hat you speak of ? 

Mr. Cutler. I have never heard of him since. I have had rumors 
of him indirectly, but none directly, and I have never had a letter. 
That answers your question, Mr. Marshall? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Cutler. Baron Schlippenbach asked me if I was born in Rus- 
sia and I said I Avas. Then he asked me if I had Russia's permis- 
sion to become a citizen of the United States, as I have related, and 
I told him the circumstances under which I left the country. I have 
already gone into that. Then he said, "Your parents were born in 
Russia ? " I said " Yes." He said, " You did not become a citizen 
of the United States until you w^ere 21 years old? " I said, " That is 



54 TEEMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832, 

true." He said, "Did you ask Eussia's permission then?" I said; 
" No, sir." Then he said, " You will be considered and are consid- 
ered a Russian subject, and should you enter Russia you will be 
amenable to the laws of Russia." I was bold enough to inquire 
whether that meant amenable to laws as applicable to the Jews, and 
he replied, " Amenable to the laws of Russia, sir." I refused to be a 
party to this inquisition, in consequence of which I did not get the 
passport viseed. 

In receiving the passport from the State Department, I should 
state there was also this included : 

Notice to American citizens formerly subjects of Russia who contemplate 
returning to tiiat country. 

Under Russian law a Russian subject who becomes a citizen of another 
country without the consent of the Russian Government is deemed to have 
committed an offense for which he is liable to arrest and punishment if he 
returns without previously obtaining the permission of the Russian Government. 

This GoA'ernmeut dissents from this provision of Russian law, but an 
American citizen, formerly a subject of Russia, who returns to that country 
places himself within the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect 
immunity from its operation. 

No one is admitted to Russia unless his passport has been viseed, or Indorsed, 
by a Russian diplomatic or consular representative. 

Elihtj Root. 

Depaetment of State, 

Washington, January 25, 1908. 

Mr. Marshall. That was a printed circular ? 

Mr. Cutler. Yes. I want to direct the attention of the committee to 
one phrase particularly in this circular which I have read, and that is, 
" This Government dissents from this provision of Russian law, but 
an American citizen, formerly a subject of Russia, who returns to 
that country places himself within the jurisdiction of Russian laws 
and can not expect immunity from its operation." 

Mr. Garner. That is signed by the Secretary of State of the United 
States, is it? 

Mr. Cutler. Yes ; by Mr. Root, the Secretary of State. 

Now, gentlemen, I will not take up any more time. 

The matters involved in this can be better explained by the gentle- 
men who have preceded me and those who will follow me; but I 
can not lose this opportunity to say to you that there seems to be a 
mistaken idea on the part of the great big public, who I think have 
not been acquainted with the situation, owing to the quiet diplomatic 
course pursued for 40 years, and I regret to say that a great many 
editors do not know that such a condition exists — or at least did not 
know it until recently, and until the State of Rhode Island, which 
was the first State to pass a resolution asking the President and 
Congress to ameliorate the conditions we are discussing — there were 
a great many editors that had never heard, apparently, of the condi- 
tions existing, and the facts about the situation, generally speak- 
ing, did not seem to be known throughout the country. But the 
action of Rhode Island has been followed by similar action in other 
States, and such measures, such proposed action by the legislatures 
is now pending before a number of State legislatures that will soon 
convene. I can give you a list of the States which have passed 
resolutions asking for an abrogation of this treaty with Russia. 
They are Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and 
Washington. 



TERMIlSrATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 55 

I wanted to say that there seems to be a mistaken idea because the 
words Jew and Jewish faith come into the discussion of the subject 
so much and are so prominent, and that mistaken idea is that this is 
a Jewish question. I deny emphatically that it is a Jewish question. 
I deny emphatically that it is a Russian question. 

The Chairman. It is an American question. 

Mr. Cutler. Most certainly interpreted as an American question; 
and if I am true to my oath of allegiance to the United States, and if 
I believe in the history and traditions upon which this Government 
has been founded, and if I am patriotic as a citizen, it is my duty to 
protest against a shameful ignominy that has existed all of these 
years against American institutions. [Applause.] 

The Chairman. If there be no objection, the papers referred to by 
Mr. Cutler will be incorporated as a part of the record. 

Mr. Cutler. Do joii want the passj^ort also? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Foster. You recognize that in this case there is the additional 
question of expatriation involved ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; I will get to that. 

Mr. Foster. That is not involved in this proposition. You do not 
pretend that we are going to try to reach that ? 

Mr. Marshall. I mean to say that our Government has from its 
earliest days, in its communications with Russia, insisted that it can 
not recognize the Russian doctrine of nonexpatriation. There is on 
the statutes of this countrj^ a declaration passed by Congress, ap- 
proved by the President, which directly guarantees, so far as the 
country can guarantee, the right of expatriation. 

Mr. Leoare. I presume, from what you said, Mr. Cutler, that you 
did not get your passport and that you did not go to Russia ? 

Mr. Cutler. I did not have my passport viseed, and I did not enter 
Russia, because it was pointed out to me that, had I entered Russia 
without my passport being viseed, I would then be violating my 
oaths and obligations to my country, because I may have been 
subject to arrest, and thereby have embroiled my Government, the 
United States, in a question of that sort. 

(The papers submitted by Mr. Cutler are as follows:) 

AppUcation for vise of a foreign passport for Russia. 

Name . Where born . Religion . Business or tourist. 

Have you been a citizen or subject of any other country? . 

Signature: . 

New York . 



Notice to American Citizens Formerly Subjects of Russia who Contemplate 
Returning to that Country. 

Under Russian law a Russian subject who becomes a citizen of another 
country without the consent of the Russian Government is deemed to have com- 
mitted an offense for which he is liable to arrest and punishment if he returns 
without previously obtaining the permission of the Russian Government. 

This Government dissents from this provision of Russian law, but an Ameri- 
can citizen, formerly a subject of Russia, who returns to that country places 
himself within the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect immunity 
from its operations. 



56 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

No one is admitted to Russia unless his passport is viseed or indorsed by a 
Russian diplomatic or consular representative. 

Elihtt Root. 
Depaetment of State, Washington, January 25, 1908. 

This is the circular I received with my passport No. 49536, mailed to me May 
1, 1911. 

Harry Cutler. 
New York, N. Y., May 10, 1911. 



TGood for only two j'ears from date.] 

United States of America. 

Department of State. 

To all to wJiom these presents shall coine, greeting: 

I, the undersigned. Secretary of State of the United States of America, hereby 
request all whom it may concern to permit Harry Cutler, a citizen of the United 
States, safely and freely to pass, and in case of need to give him all lawful aid 
and protection. 

Description : Age, 36 years ; stature, 5 feet 11 inches, English ; forehead, large ; 
eyes, dark brown ; nose, broad ; mouth, large ; chin, medium ; hair, dark brown 
and gray ; complexion, dark ; face, nothing unusual. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the Department of State at the city of 
Washington, the 1st day of May, in the year 1911 and of the Independence of 
the United States the one hundred and thirty-fifth. 

[seal.] p. C. Knox. 

Signature of the bearer : 
Harry Cutler. 

[No. 49536.] 

The Chaieman. The next speaker is Mr. Leon Kamaiky, of New 
York. 

STATEMENT OE MR. LEON KAMAIKY. 

Mr. Marshall. AVhat is your business, Mr. Kamaiky ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Publisher of the Jewish Daily News. 

Mr. Marshall. Is that a paper with a Jewish circulation ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. It is. 

The Chairman. It has the largest circulation of any Jewish paper 
in the United States, has it not? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it is published in my district? 

Mr. GoLDFOGLE. No ; Mr. Kamaiky suggests that it is my district. 

Mr. Marshall. How long have you been a citizen of the United 
States ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. For 21 years. 

Mr. Marshall. You came from Hussia, did you ? 

Mr. K1A.MAIKY. Yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Did you make a visit to Europe with your wife 
this last summer? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Did you get a passport? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Have you that passport with you ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Will you please produce it ? 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 57 

Mr. Kamaiky. Tiiis is it [producing passport] . 

Mr. Marshall. Did you make application to have it viseed? 

Mr. Kamaiky. I did more than make application. I tried to use 
some influence ; and the chairman of this committee, Mr. Sulzer, tried 
his best with the Russian ambassador and the Secretary of State, and 
even the President, I understand, to have my passport viseed. He 
can give you more information than I can in regard to that. 

Mr. Marshall. Notwithstanding all that anct your request, was it 
viseed or not? 

Mr. Kamaiky. It was not. 

Mr. Marshall. What was the reason ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Well, on account of my religion. 

Mr. Marshall. Did you subsequently visit London ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. I visited London; and I went in there to the Eus- 
sian consul, and I presented my passport and he viseed it. 

(Following is the transliteration and translation of Mr. Kamaiky 's 
passport:) 

No. 2754. Vizirovan Imperator-Skim Rossiyskim Generalnym Cousulstvom v 
Londonye Severo-Americanskomu Grazhdaninu Yevreyu Leonu Kamaiky otprav- 
lyayushcliemusya v Rossin po toryovym dyelan srokom na Shest (6) myesyatzeu 
V kachestvye predstavitelyu Sugar Products Company v Nev/ Yorkye. 
London 13/26 Yulya 1911g. 
Ya Generalnavo Consula, 

E. Games. 
[Translation.] 

No. 2754. Vis6d by the imperial Russian consulate general in London to Leon 
Kamaiky, a citizen of the United States of North America, a Jew, who is going 
to Russia on commercial business for the term of six months in the capacity of 
a representative of the Sugar Products Co., of New York. 

London, July 13-26, 1911. '" "" 

E. Gambs, Acting Consul General. 

[Seal of the Russian Consulate General.] 

2 rubles 25 kopecks (4 shillings 10 pence.) 

Mr. Marshall. But you could not get it viseed in the city of Wash- 
ington by the representative of Russia in this country ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. No. 

Mr. Marshall. And you used all this influence for the purpose of 
having it viseed? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Did you go to Russia? 

Mr. Kamaiky. I did not. 

Mr. Marshall. Why? 

Mr. Kamaiky. Because this passport is for myself and my wife. 
They had it viseed for me, but not for my wife, and I did not want 
to go and leave my wife behind. 

Mr. Kendall. "\¥hat is the inference from what you say? Why 
should the Russian Government refuse to vise it here, and yet you 
were able to have it viseed in London ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. I do not know. It seems to be harder to get it 
done in this country than in European countries. 

Mr. Garner. Is it not a fact that more Russian Jews immigrate 
to this country than to England ? 

Mr. Kamaiky. I suppose so. 

Mr. Garner. May not that have something to do with it? 



58 TERMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Makshall. I do not see that that is particularly logical. 
There is perhaps this reason: That there are entangling alliances 
between Russia and England, that there are secret treaties with 
England, and there are no such treaties or alliances between Russia 
and the United States. We do not have the benefit of any such 
treaties, notwithstanding there is the most-favored-nation clause 
in the treaty of 1832. 

Mr. Flood. It shows a greater discrimination against us than 
against England. 

Mr. Kamaiky. Precisely. 

Mr. Garner. If you abrogate this treaty, is it not calculated to call 
to Russia's attention the discrimination against the United States, 
or the Jews of the United States ? Is not that the real good to come 
from it ? I think that was brought out by Mr. Foster's question. 

Mr. Marshall. Precisely, and notifies Russia of our established 
policy, and we tell Russia that rather than continue under existing 
conditions we would prefer not to have any treaty at all. 

Mr. Foster. And you had no idea that it would lessen our com- 
mercial business even 1 or 1^ per cent? 

Mr. Marshall. No. 

Mr. Foster. So it does not involve the dollar as against the man 
after all, does it? 

Mr. Marshall. It merely indicates that if we do not take action 
for fear of those consequences, that we do place the dollar above the 
man, and the test of whether we place the dollar above the man is 
before this Congress, whether they will abrogate the treaty or not. 
If it will not abrogate the treaty it would seem to indicate that Con- 
gress does place the dollar above the man. 

Mr. Goodwin. What effect would the abrogation of the treaty have, 
in your opinion, as to the attitude or feeling on the part of Russia 
toward the Jews? Could it be intensified smj more than it is now? 

Mr. Marshall. I do not think it could be worse. I do not believe 
Russia will, in the face of any action by the United States, resort to 
massacres and so on, but if it does, the Jews have been accustomed 
to such treatment for many years, and they will not shrink from that. 
And if it does, then the world will know what Russia is. I do not 
believe that Russia, in the face of action by the United States, would 
dare to increase the pressure upon the Jews, to make the pressure 
greater than now exists. 

Mr. Garner. By turning to the twelfth section of this treaty you 
will see that there has been some question as to when we should give 
notice of abrogation of the treaty and when it would go into effect. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garner. I would like to have you tell the committee your 
judgment of the construction of that provision. 

Mr. Marshall. Well, my idea until a few days ago was that that 
meant a year's notice. There is something ambiguous in the lan- 
guage used in that article which would justify the interpretation that 
the year would have to begin on the 1st of January subsequent to the 
giving of notice. Therefore, if we gave notice before the 1st of Jan- 
uary this year the treaty would end on the 31st daj^ of December, 
1912. If we gave notice after the 1st of January it might not expire 
until the 31st of December, 1913. There is that contention made and 
there is that danger. The language used is not clear. 



TEEMINATIOlsr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. . 59 

Now, concrete instances have been called for. I can give you hun- 
dreds of them. There is the case of Eev. J. Leonard Levy, of Pitts- 
burgh, formerly of Philadelphia. He was born in England and came 
to this country. He was not a Russian citizen. He was under most 
trying circumstances prevented from entering Russia. In fact there 
was danger to his life if he was not permitted to get to Odessa, and 
nevertheless he was refused a vise of his passport. 

But, see what the State Department says in regard to this matter. 
How has the State Department construed Russia's action? It has 
not considered it as affecting merely elews born in Russia. That is 
only a secondary thing. That is really beside the question. 

Here is the circular issued by the Department of State on May 28, 
1907, just preceding the circular which Mr. Cutler a while ago called 
to the attention of the committee. That was a modification of the 
original notice. That notice, after containing the provisions which 
Mr. Cutler referred to, says: 

Jews, whether they were formerly Russian subjects or not — 

and that means an American Jew born here or in England or Ger- 
many or France — 

are not admitted to Russia unless they obtain special permission in advance 
from the Russian Goyerument, and this department will not issue -passports to 
former Russian subjects or to Jews who intend going to Russian territory unless 
it has assurance that the Russian Government will consent to their admission. 

This is an admission by our Government that Russia's contention 
affected not only Russian-born citizens of the United States but all 
citizens of the United States if they are Jews. What more concrete 
instance can you require? 

Mr. Kendall. Was that circular recalled? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; this was recalled as the result of a letter I 
wrote in conjunction with Mr. Edward Lauterbach to the State 
Department, indicating that that was the first time that Jews have 
been segregated from the mass of citizens in that way. 

Mr. Kendall. And it was subsequently recalled? 

Mr. Marshall. It was subsequently recalled; but the circular to 
which Mr. Cutler has called attention was issued in it place, and 
Mr. Lauterbach and I felt constrained to once more call the attention 
of the State Department to Russia's violation of the statute of the 
United States, because in that notice it is stated that "An American 
citizen, formerly a subject of Russia, who returns to Russia places 
himself under the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect 
immunity from its operations." I then called the attention of the 
State Department to this provision of the United Revised Statutes 
for the purpose of indicating that all citizens have the right of 
immunity under that law and to protection. This is the language 
of Congress, which has never been departed from and which continues 
to be the law of this land : 

Sec. 1999. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent 
right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle 
this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested 
them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such 
American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing 
all allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the 
maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be 



60 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore, any declaration, instruction, opin- 
ion, order, or decision of any officer of tlie United States which denies, restricts, 
impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the 
fundamental principles of the Republic. 

Sec. 2000. All naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign 
countries, are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same 
protection of persons and property which is accorded to native-born citizens. 

Sec. 2001. Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the 
United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the 
authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forth- 
with to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment ; and if 
it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, 
the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the 
release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall 
use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and 
proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings 
relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President 
to Congress. 

Here is a declaration of the American doctrine of the right of ex- 
patriation which has been observed by our country from the earliest 
days. That is the doctrine which our State Department has called 
to the attention of Russia's state department year after year. It was 
done by Secretary Blaine; it was done by Secretary Olney; it has 
been done by all the Secretaries of State of every political com- 
plexion. They have all united in that interpretation of our rights 
and in pressing that to the attention of Russia 

Mr. Kendall (interposing). You directed the State Department'^ 
attention to these statutes? 

Mr. Marshall. I did. 

Mr. Kendall. And what response did you get ? 

Mr. Marshall. The response was that the State Department with- 
drew the second circular, the one to which Mr. Cutler has called 
your attention. But I would like to state that during the present 
year that same circular was once more issued. Mr. Cutler got that 
circular during 1911, although it was dated 1908. 

Mr. GoLDFOGLE. At this point I want to say, in order that the facts 
may accurately appear, that after the offensive circular of May 28, 
1907, was issued bj^ the State Department, my colleague from New 
York, Mr. Harrison, then on the Foreign Affairs Committee, pro- 
tested vigorously against that very offensive and insulting circu- 
lar, and as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the 
floor of the House, he supported the resolution that I introduced, 
calling the attention of Congress to this offensive matter in the cir- 
cular and demanding its recall. I protested at the Bureau of Citi- 
zenship against that offensive clause, to which Mr. Marshall has 
called attention, and Mr. Harrison, in a very strong and vigorous 
address made in the House of Representatives, explained the entire 
matter and entered for himself, as well as for myself, the introducer 
of the resolution, and for others, a protest against any such circular 
emanating from an American State Department. 

Mr. Cooper. That is a very important statement that you have 
just made. This circular of 1907 you declared objectionable, and it 
was withdrawn? 

Mr. GoLDEOGLE. Yes. 

Mr. Cooper. And you say that a copy of it was received in 1911 ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes ; the same circular was received by Mr. Cutler 
in 1911 — that is, I mean the second circular of January, 1908. 



TERMIIJfATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 61 

Mr. Cooper. Bearing the same date ? 

Mr. Marshall. Bearing the same date. I will add to that that the 
State Department in 1911 under the date of March 30 and over the 
signature of the present Secretary of State, republished that same 
circular of January 25, 1908, which was said to have been withdrawn 
as the result of the correspondence to which I have referred; but I 
understand that subsequently that circular has since then again been 
" withdrawn " by the State Department, 

Mr. Cooper. Which was the first offensive circular? 

Mr. Marshall. The first offensive circular was the circular dated 
May 28, 1907. 

Mr. Cooper. When was that withdrawn? 

Mr. Marshall. That was withdrawn by the substitution of the 
circular of the 25th of January, 1908. 

Mr. Cooper. In what manner? 

Mr. Marshall. By the issuance of the circular just referred to in 
place thereof. 

Mr. Kendall. This one [indicating] ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; that is the one that Mr. Cutler referred to. 

Mr. Kendall. As having been issued by the Department of State 
on May 1, 1911? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. Mr. Cutler received that circular May 1, 
1911. That was the circular issued on January 25, 1908, by the Sec- 
retary of State, Mr. Elihu Eoot. That was, however, withdrawn 
by the State Department, at least the then Acting Secretary of State, 
Eobert Bacon, gave notice that he would withdraw it, in a letter 
dated the 18th day of February, 1908. At that time they said they 
eliminated from fhat circular the words that " an American citizen 
formerly a subject of Eussia who returns to that country places 
himself within the jurisdiction of Eussian law and can not expect 
immunity from its operation." 

Mr. Kendall. Did the circular which Mr. Cutler received in the 
present year contain the objectionable words which had been sup- 
posedly eliminated from the objectionable circular of 1908? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. He got the very same circular issued by 
Secretary Eoot on January 25, 1908. 

Mr. Kendall. There was no difference? 

Mr. Marshall. There was no difference. 

Mr. Kendall. That included the objectionable wor«is? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. Almost concurrently with the issuance of the 
passport to Mr. Cutler there was also issued a circular in the same 
objectionable phraseology by the present Secretary of State, Mr. 
Knox, under date of March 30, 1911. We are informed that that 
circular has since been withdrawn, but we have no absolute knowl- 
edge of that fact. 

Mr. Sharp. What evidence have you by correspondence that any 
one of these circulars was formerly withdrawn ? 

Mr. Marshall. In the first place, I had a letter from Mr. Eoot, say- 
ing that the circular of 1907 was withdrawn. In that circular he 
inclosed a copy of this second circular of January 25, 1908, asking 
me whether that was satisfactory. I answered it was not, and indi- 
cated in what respect it was not, calling attention to the fact that 
it violates sections 1999, 2000, and 2001 of the Eevised Statutes. 



62 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Thereupon I was informed by Mr. Bacon, the Acting Secretary, that 
they had issued a new circular which eliminated those objectionable 
words. 

Mr. Sharp. Will that correspondence be made a part of this 
record ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sharp. Have you it there? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. It is in the pamphlet " The Passport Ques- 
tion." It was included in those papers. I will leave that as part of 
my argument. (See appendix II, pp. 240-243.) 

You have asked for concrete cases. I do not suppose that any- 
thing more is required on that proposition — where we find that our 
State Department has recognized the fact as to what is condition 
of things and has been the condition of things, and when this cor- 
respondence which I have put in evidence indicates that the very 
ground of contention was that there had been a persistent violation 
of the treaty for nearly half a century. 

The very first case was the Rosenstraus case, which arose in 1873. 
The case of his brother arose some six j^ears later. 

In both of those cases they were natives of Wurttemberg. They 
had never been Eussian citizens; they had become naturalized citi- 
zens of the United States and went to Russia on business, and our 
protests were lodged in the State Department in regard to those 
cases. They were the test cases of citizens who were non-Russians 
having trouble. In fact, before 1881, when this question first arose, 
there were comparatively few Russian Jews in the United States. 
The largest number, practically 90 per cent of them, had come from 
other countries or were born in this country, so that this whole ques- 
tion commenced as a question which affected the rights of American 
citizens who were not of Russian birth, and this other question of 
expatriation, while it has bearing upon certain phases of the ques- 
tion is only one of the side issues and one of the collateral questions 
which are here involved. The great question here is, I repeat, the 
great American question is, as to whether or not there is to be equal- 
ity before the law, whether or not there is to be freedom from dis- 
crimination as to all citizens of the United States, whatever their 
race, whatever their religion, whatever the land of their nativity. 

The Chairman. Have you anywhere near concluded, Mr. Marshall ? 

Mr. Marshall. No; I have a great deal more to say on certain 
aspects of the case. 

The Chairman. In that case, have you any objection to suspending 
now until 2 o'clock to give others a chance ? 

Mr. Marshall. I will be very glad to do so. 

The Chairmn. I ask that because there are some gentlemen here 
who have to go away. 

Mr. Marshall. I will be glad to have that done. There are certain 
objections made by Russia, which I think will require an answer, and 
I am very desirous of presenting the whole case in all of its various 
aspects. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, when we suspend 
after hearing the next speaker, we will take a recess until 2 o'clock. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the next speaker is the Rev. Donald 
C. McLeod, a Presbyterian clergyman, of Washington, D. C. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 63 

STATEMENT OE REV. BOHALD C. McLEOD, OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. McLeod. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the com- 
mittee, I regret exceedingly that Judge Marshall's speech was dis- 
continued, because what he Avas saying and what he was about to say 
is much more important than anything I have to ssij. 

This question I am sure has been discussed already so intelligently 
and profoundly by men who are experts on the subject that it is 
almost unnecessary that I should say anything at all, and I assure 
you that I will not trespass very long upon your time. 

I believe my only justification for saying anything at all at this 
time is that I am a plain citizen of the United States, and while I 
speak only for myself this morning, strictly speaking, yet I believe 
in the broadest sense that the same sentiments that actuate me in this 
matter are influencing the great mass of the plain American citizen- 
ship throughout the country, as they are becoming more and more 
acquainted with this great question that is before us. 

Let me say that we are only becoming acquainted with the ques- 
tion and only beginning to realize that this question before the Amer- 
ican peoj)le is a question of great importance, and learning about it 
as they are now doing, they will proceed to increase their knowledge 
until they know all about it. 

I take it that you honorable gentlemen are not wholly indifferent 
to what the plain citizens of this American Nation are thinking 
about. It is something that is of importance to us all, and I believe 
that there is one thing that will always set the intelligent, plain 
citizenship of this Republic to thinking, and to thinking seriously, 
and not only to serious thinking, but also that will set them to action 
every time, and it is this: Wlienever the dignity and honor of this 
Government are at stake, and whenever the privileges and the rights 
and the liberties of an American citizen are at stake, then the plain 
citizenship of this Republic will do serious thinking and will do 
earnest and, if necessary, self-sacrificing actions. 

This, I believe, first of all, because of the exalted patriotism of 
the average American citizen, and, second, because of a justifiable 
element of selfishness that enters into human life, because we all 
recognize the fact that if one class of American citizens, because of 
their religion, or because of their race, can be discriminated against 
and can have injustice done to them without any protest on the part 
of the Government of the United States, then the time can come, and 
may be expected to come, when the same injustice and discrimina- 
tion may be used against some other class because of their race or 
because of their religion. 

I simply want to call the attention of the committee briefly to 
something that is so patent and so plain that I am hardly justified 
in speaking of it at all. This great question that is before you is 
brought under the light of certain great principles that underlie the 
Government of the United States and the institutions of the United 
States which are known. The plain citizen who does not know the 
Constitution by memory and who may not be able to interpret the 
Constitution according to the judgment of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, nevertheless is familiar with certain great principles 
underlying the Constitution and underlying the institutions of our 

19831—11 5 



64 TEKMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Government; there are certain such principles which are known to 
the plain citizens of our country, and this question that is before us 
this morning comes under the blazing light of those principles. 

The first is this : That no American citizen shall suffer in his right 
and in his privileges and in his liberties because of the accidental 
circumstances of his race or of his religion. We all know this. It 
is one of the great principles that run right through the Declara- 
tion of Independence. 

Now, the second great principle is this — and I believe we all recog- 
nize it — that the greatness of any State is largely determined, not 
altogether determined, but I believe that the greatness of any State 
is determined largely, and it is determined vitally, by the ability 
with which that State will maintain and protect its citizens in the 
exercise of their privileges, rights, and liberties, not only upon the 
sacred ground of our own Nation, but whenever those citizens may 
in the providence of God find themselves anywhere on the earth; 
and the nation that is not able to protect its citizens in the exercise 
of their rights and liberties will not have the highest respect nor 
the truest loyalty of its citizens. 

Now, the next principle is this : That the highest test of the honor, 
or one of the highest tests of the honor and dignity of a State, is the 
willingness and the readiness with which at all times, with all 
patience and all wisdom, but yet with all power, it will be ready to 
see to it that in every legitimate way its citizens will be protected 
in the exercise of their rights and of their liberties. I am sure that 
this American public is ready to stand up to these tests. We have 
the ability to protect our citizenship in the exercise of their rights 
and privileges, not only in their own country but wherever they may 
be throughout the world. I am sure the Nation is ready to stand 
by the rights of its citizens and also will protect the weak every- 
where, whether they are citizens of our own country or not. 

I recognize the particular point that has been emphasized so elo- 
quently by Mr. Marshall and which is the central idea of the resolu- 
tion of the chairman of this committee, that the thing to appeal to 
and that is appealing to the plain citizens of the United States at the 
present time, as they are becoming acquainted with the situation, 
and the thing that appeals to us is that our own Government seems 
to be a party to these discriminations that are being made against 
a class of our citizenship because of the circumstances of race or 
religion. Now, we can not afford to be placed in that position. We 
are not supposed to discriminate against any class of our citizenship, 
but, on the contrary, we are supposed to do all in our power, patiently 
and yet strongly, to protect our citizens in the exercise of their rights 
and liberties. 

I think that in view of these circumstances the only thing we can 
justifiably do, after we have used all patience and all earnestness and 
all reason with the Russian Government — which evidently has been 
done during the process of 40 years — is to abrogate this treaty and 
place our own Government right with all our citizens. In doing this 
we will not only be doing justice to this particular class of our citi- 
zenship that is suffering at the present time, but we shall be guaran- 
teeing, as far as we can in this particular respect, that in all time to 
come justice shall be done to every class of American citizenship 
without regard to race or religion. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 65 

The Chairman. I suppose you are aware of the fact that Russia 
also discriminates against Catholic priests and Baptist ministers and 
Presbyterian divines? 

Mr. TowNSEND. I suppose it is the purpose of the committee to 
print this diplomatic correspondence which has transpired? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. That will go into the record as part of 
Mr. Marshall's remarks. (See Appendix I, pp. 105 et seq.) 

Mr. TowNSEND. Mr. Marshall, I think, overlooked to ask that it 
be made a part of the record. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, before we take a recess Rev. Dr. Jo- 
seph Silverman, of New York City, desires to address the committee 
upon this proposition. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI JOSEPH SILVERMAN, OF NEW YORK CITY. 

Mr. Silverman. In the Mosaic code we are taught, " There shall 
be one law for all of you, for the native born and the stranger." 
Upon that principle the American Constitution was founded; this 
country was built. For the application of that principle our law 
went to war against the mother country. For the maintenance of 
that inalienable right of man to equality before the law the Union 
waged a bitter war against the Confederacy. Our country has 
sought to preserve the right of all its citizens at home and abroad. 
In one notable instance we regret to say our country has failed. We 
are here to-day as representatives of 2,000,000 American citizens to 
lay our grievance before Congress — that our country has signally 
failed in securing for us the same equality before the law of the land 
that our fellow citizens enjoy. Two million Americans are being 
daily insulted by Russia ; are being daily humiliated and held up to 
the reprobation of the world ; are being told that they are not worthy 
of entrance into Russian territory; are thus being classed with out- 
casts whose presence in any country would be undesirable. We have 
stood these insults for 40 years. The situation is to-day intolerable. 
The time has come when patience ceases to be a virtue; when it is 
tantamount to weakness and cowardice. 

We have come to our Government respectfully to ask for justice, 
This is our only country ; the American Constitution is our law ; the 
American flag is our flag. We ask that Congress secure for us pro- 
tection against Russia's discrimination; that Congress insist, with 
all the force at its command upon a just and equitable interpretation 
of the treaty between America and the Government of Russia. A 
fundamental principle of our Constitution is at stake — the honor of 
our nation is being besmirched. Let as remember that the rights of 
the least, of the humblest of our citizens should be of concern to the 
Nation. No one is absolutely free unless all are free. No one re- 
ceives full justice unless all receive it. Gentlemen, we pray for your 
gracious consideration of our plea for justice. 

We favor the adoption of the Sulzer resolution to abrogate the 
treaty. 

Mr. McAdoo. I want to ask one question. May we have permis- 
sion to incorporate in the record resolutions of that mass meeting 
and the speeches made there ? 



66 TERMINATIOE" OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

The Chairman. If there is no objection, the proceedings of the 
mass meeting in New York City will be incorporated in the record as 
a part of Mr. McAdoo's remarks. 

The committee will now take a recess until 2 o'clock p. m. 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee met pursuant to the taking of recess. 
The Chairman. We will hear first from the Hon. Jacob H. Schiff, 
of New York. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB H. SCHIFF, OF NEW YOKK CITY. 

Mr. ScHJFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
am sure it would be an endeavor to carry coals to Newcastle if after 
the masterful expose of this subject by the gentleman from Phila- 
delphia, Judge Sulzberger, and Mr. Louis Marshall, I would attempt 
to say anything further on the development of the question that is 
before us. In the few minutes which I have at my disposal I would 
like to utilize the time to show you how little progress this entire 
question has made as a result of the manner in which it has thus far 
been treated. 

I put from consideration the long decades before the last ad- 
ministration came in. You know how all Republicans, Demo- 
crats, and minor political parties all united in the last two cam- 
paigns to promise that something effectual should be done. And 
but poor progress has been made. I have here in my pocket a letter 
from Mr. Secretary Root, which he wrote me of his own accord. 
Not because of any question I had put to him, or anything I had 
written to him. Tie wrote me at the end of his last administration 
in the Department of State. He was speaking of two cases. He be- 
gins his letter, which is dated the 19th of October, 1908, as follows : 

My Dear Me. Schiff : There are two matters about wMch you have shown 
an interest and which I should like to have clearly understood. 

I can only assume, since he opens this way, that he wanted to show 
that he had been a good steward of the important matters in ques- 
tion which had come under his administration. Then he goes on 
and speaks of the Pouren case, which, as you remember, was agitated 
in about 1906 or 1907, by the people o~f the United States, which 
question involved the matter of whether a political offender should 
be returned to Russia upon the demand by that Government. I will 
not take the time of the committee to read this, because this is old 
history. Then he passes to the passport question and said : 

The other matter relates to securing from the Russian Government equality 
of treatment of all American citizens who seek to enter Russia with passports, 
without regard to their creed or origin. 

Our Government has never varied in its insistence upon such treatment, and 
this administration has repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the 
Russian Government and urged the making of a new treay for the purpose of 
regulating the subject. 

We have but recently received an unfavorable reply to this proposal, and we 
have now communicated to Russia an expression of the desire of this Govern- 
ment for a complete revision and amendment of the treaty of 1832, which pro- 
vides for reciprocal rights of residence and travel on the part of the citizens of 
the two countries. We have expressed our views that such a course would be 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 67 

preferable to the complete termination of the treaty, subjecting both countries 
to the possibility of being left without any reciprocal rights whatever owing to 
the delay in the making of a new treaty. 

The course which the administration is following in this respect is the one 
which appears to use to be best calculated to attain the end desired, an end as 
to which I beg to assure you the administration is in full and sympathetic 
agreement with you." 

Now, gentleman, this is a chestnut that has come down through 
the centuries. This question has always been in the same position 
at the end of every administration. Every administration has 
claimed it has done the best that was practicable. But that has not 
been the case. The best that was practicable was never done; and 
whatever has been done has not been done at the time it should be 
done. The best that is practicable is to honor and vindicate the 
dignity of the American people as against Russia and all that Russia 
stands for. 

Gentlemen, just think of it! If any of you who may happen to 
confess the Jewish faith, any American who accidentally was born 
of Jewish parentage, wants to go to the Far East to-day, and wants 
to take the shortest route, he takes the Trans-Siberian Railway. 
When he comes to the Russian border he is told " No thoroughfare." 
Just think of it, gentlemen, just think of what that means to an 
American. In 1914 or 1915 our Panama Canal will be completed — 
that great contribution which the American people are making to 
civilization and to the civilized world. That will be then open to 
the commerce of the world. Let us suppose that a Russian steamer 
comes to the gates of the canal and may be told " You can not pass 
through." What a howl there would be on the part of the civilized 
world. You see the simile. Are you going to stand for this? 

Gentlemen, I have finished, and I have only this to beg of you 
in conclusion. I have little fear that a committee composed as this 
committee is composed, of high-minded men, of what the report of 
this committee will be ; but if you wish to vindicate the dignity of 
this Congress, the dignity of the American people, make your report 
unanimous. [Applause.] 

The Chairman. The committee vvill now hear from the Hon. 
Oscar S. Straus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. OSCAR S. STEATJS, OF NEW YORK CITY. 

Mr. Straus. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I will 
consum.e but a very few minutes of your time. It seems to me the 
subject has already been very clearly presented to you, and, besides, 
I know that a number of you gentlemen have already given careful 
consideration to the subject and have also presented it from its 
various points of view. 

The question, it seems to me, is a very simple one, free from any 
technicalities, and one that is apparent and based upon principles 
that are universally acknowledged. In this country everyone will 
agree that under our laws and under our system of Government we 
have no right to make any discrimination between our citizens based 
upon creed or upon religion. That is a fundamental principle of the 
American system and ideals of freedom. 

In 1832 we made a treaty with Russia. By that treaty the Govern- 
ment of that time believed — in fact, they knew when they made that 



68 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

treaty — that it was not in conflict with any of the fundamental prin- 
ciples of our Government or system or ideals of liberty. The treaty 
went along for a number of years, and no questions that would bring 
up that subject arose. About 40 years ago Russia — the bureaucracy 
of Russia — took it into its mind to construe that treaty as giving it a 
right to discriminate as to citizens of the United States, based upon 
creed and religion. 

Our Government, of course, has never acceded to that interpreta- 
tion of that treaty. In fact, it could not accede to it. Our Govern- 
ment has gone further at times and has stated, " We have no power 
in this country to discriminate as to our people upon the basis of creed 
or religion, and we can not permit any other nation to make that dis- 
crimination for us." 

This question forcibly came up in the famous Keily case. Mr. 
Keily was sent, under the Cleveland administration, as our minister 
to Austria. The reply of Secretary Bayard to the Austrian Govern- 
ment in that case is one of the most forcible expositions of that prin- 
ciple of freedom by our Government. 

Now, Russia has gone on, in these 40 years, making this discrimi- 
nation. In other words, interpreting this treaty, which is the highest 
law of the land, as permitting it to refuse admission into the Russian 
Empire of certain classes of our citizens — Jews, clergymen. Catholic 
priests, and missionaries. 

The negotiations that have taken place since that time you are 
familiar with, and they have been referred to. Now, an old question 
takes on quite another form, which is a purely American question — - 
that having again and again had concrete cases of American citizens, 
native born and naturalized, who have desired to go into Russia for 
business and for other purposes have been refused the right of going 
there. The only wonder will be in the future that we have for so 
long a time acquiesced, not by word but by allowing to continue the 
existence of this interpretation of the treaty of 1832 by Russia. That 
acquiescence on our part — that is, by carrying on these negotiations 
and not bringing them to a conclusion — is sorely reflecting upon our 
citizenship. 

It has been again and again said that this is not a Jewish ques- 
tion. Of course it is not a Jewish question. We are not here in 
any other capacity than to vindicate the rights of American citi- 
zens pure and simple. And as long as we delay taking suitable 
action we are concurring and acquiescing in a violation of one of 
the fundamental principles of our Government. I think that is 
very plain. 

Now, as to the course to follow. That is very plain, very simple. 
We have made this treaty with Russia. We have observed it on 
our part on every occasion without any exception. She has vio- 
lated it on her part on every occasion. Their treaty provides — and 
if it did not provide we still would have the right of terminating 
it — but that treaty distinctly provides that either party may, after 
its first seven years upon a notice of 12 months, terminate the treaty. 
That right being in the treaty and we not using it, that makes our 
acquiescence in the violation of rights of American citizens more 
emphatic on our part, and it seems to me such a simple question, 
such a manifest duty on our part to give notice that if you, Russia, 
insist, as you have insisted, that this treaty means that you have a 



TEKMIITATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. -69 

right to make this discrimination, we distinctly inform you that we 
can never accede to such an interpretation, and, further, that the 
treaty itself does not warrant any such interpretation. 

So it is not a very extraordinary thing, in foreign relations, in 
our own foreign relations, as has also been pointed out by Mr. 
Marshall. If we give notice to the Russian Government that this 
treaty must be terminated, that is so simple and that is so manifestly 
our duty, that now that the subject has become one which is being 
made clear to Congress, I can not possibly see why we should for a 
moment delay taking the action which we are not only justified in 
taking but which the treaty itself provides we have a right to take. 

Dr. McLeod this morning, the minister of the Presbyterian Church, 
stated that this was not a Jewish question, that it was equally a 
Presbyterian question. He did not know when he made that state- 
ment, 1 presume, how distinctly it is a Presbyterian, a Congregational, 
a Protestant, and a Catholic question. I will give you an illustra- 
tion, an example, how it is a question that effects the Presbyterians 
equally with any other class of our citizens. 

In 1908, during my second mission to Turkey, a number of our 
American instructors in the various American schools and colleges in 
Turkey, as it was their custom, returned to the United States to visit 
their families, and upon their return to Turkey from the United 
States, arriving in Constantinople, they were held there by the Turk- 
ish Government, which Government refused to give them a pass- 
port or a teskere, which is the Turkish name for an internal pass- 
port, so that they were held at Constantinople and were prevented 
from joining their posts in the interior of Turkey, their colleges, 
schools, hospitals, and other American institutions (there are some 
450 of them) , which are now established in Turkey. I also had been 
home on leave, and when I returned I found these 10 or 12 men there. 
I immediately took up the matter with the council of ministers and 
with the Sultan, and when I ran the thing down the answer was this : 
That they did not want the American instructors and missionaries to 
return to their posts and that they did not propose to give them the 
permission or passports which would insure them protection en route 
to their posts. I asked for an audience with the Sultan and de- 
manded that they be no longer restrained from joining their various 
posts in accordance with the right that they had as American citizens. 
The answer that was given to me was this : " Why, Russia assumes 
the right to discriminate between American citizens and to say which 
of them and what classes of them it will permit to enter Russia." 

I have reason to believe that the Turkish minister of foreign 
affairs consulted with the Russian ambassador at Constantinople in 
order to strengthen him in the position that the Turkish Govern- 
ment was taking. The fact is also that Russia was not very friendly 
to our instructors, college professors, and missionaries in Turkey, 
because she saw that those men were enlightening Turkey, that they 
were spreading civilization, and, as Russia was looking upon Turkey 
in the near future as being a prey that would come into its net of 
aggrandizement, she saw that if Turkey was awakened to her rights 
and to a higher sense of her liberties, that the time when Turkey 
would become an easy prey to Russia would be postponed, and so the 
Turkish Government took the stand that she had a right to make the 



70 TEBMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

same discriminations in the admission of American citizens to 
Turkey that Eussia had exercised. 

I desired to make it very emphatic that I was not the representa- 
tive of the United States in Russia, but I was the representative of 
the United States in Turkey, and as long as I was there every man 
bearing an American passport, whether he was Congregationalist 
or Presbyterian or whatever his creed, should have the full rights 
accorded to him as an American citizen. [Applause.] 

And I told the Sultan, "If you will not give our citizens an in- 
ternal passport to travel in your Empire, I will give it to them, and 
if any harm befalls them I give you notice now that no effort on my 
part will be spared to induce my Government to go to the fullest 
extreme to protect her citizens in this Empire." [Applause.] 

So, gentlemen of the committee, if we allow a rift to be made be- 
tween the rights of American citizens in any one country it is laying 
down the precedent for every other country to make such rifts as 
may suit their convenience or their prejudices. I think that this is 
a further illustration of the fact that this treaty of 1832 which we 
have with Russia is of as much importance to the Protestant and to 
the Catholic as it is to the Jew. It is purely and absolutely an Ameri- 
can question, and the sooner our Government takes the stand that this 
condition shall not continue a day longer, the sooner will the rights 
of America citizens be vindicated, not oni}^ in the United States, but 
throughout the world. [Applause.] 

Mr. Levy. I would like to ask one question, and that is, after the 
position 3^ou took, what action did the Sultan take ? 

Mr. Legaee. Did Turkey give the passports? 

Mr. Straus. I will be glad to answer you. After I had this very 
quiet conversation with the Sultan and his ministers, I returned to 
the legation, as it was then, and I called the gentlemen before me. 
One of them is to-day the president of Robert College, at Constanti- 
nople, a very great scholar and a remarkable educator. I told them 
precisely what the situation was. I said, " Gentlemen, it is up to 
you. If you wish to return to your various posts in the interior of 
Turkey, I will stand by you, and I will see you protected." They 
took the steamer on the Black Sea to rejoin their posts, and I notified 
the consul and ministers, popularly known as the Sublime Porte, that 
I had directed these men — Americans — to go to their several posts in 
accordance with their rights as American citizens and in pursuance 
of our treaties with the Turkish Empire. 

I went to bed that night somewhat disturbed in mind, very 
naturally, for fear that som.ething might happen to these men, and 
because I had assumed the responsibility. At 1 o'clock in the morn- 
ing a messenger came to me from the Sublime Porte,- bringing a very 
polite note from the minister of foreign affairs, saying, " I beg to 
advise you that at a council of ministers which has just been con- 
cluded that orders have been given to the various officials of the 
Provinces through which they travel that every possible protection 
shall be accorded to the American missionaries who you notified us 
had left for their posts with your authority this afternoon." 
[Applause.] 

Another queer instance arose in connection with it. It seems there 
were two or three British subjects among them who were connected 
with these various educational institutions, and when I gave the 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 71 

authority to our citizens to leturn to their posts they joined them — 
the two or three English subjects. The British ambassador came 
hurriedly to my legation and said, "My dear colleague, what have 
you done ? " I said, " To what do you refer ? " He said, " Why, these 
missionaries and instructors have gone without obtaining the author- 
ity of the Government." I said, " Yes ; that is true ; I have given 
them my authority to go. How does that concern you, my dear 
colleague ? " " Well," he said, " there are two or three British sub- 
jects that have gone with them." I said, " You need not troul3le 
yourself about them ; they are in the very best company." [Laughter 
and applause.] 

So when I received this notice from the Sublime Porte I thought 
I would not let him have too easy a night of it, and I waited until 
the following morning before I informed him that the British mis- 
sionaries were absolutely safe in the hands of the American mis- 
sionaries. 

Mr. Legare. Yfas your passport ever held up while you were in 
Russia because you were a Jew ? 

Mr. Straus. I was never held up, and never could have been held 
up, because I would not have given them the opportunity of holding 
up my passport. 

Mr. Legare, You never had any difficulty with Russia about your 
passport ? 

Mr. Straus. Did I ever have any difficulty? 

Mr. Legare. Yes ; I mean while you were minister to Turkey. 

Mr. Straus. Never. But I will tell you what I think you allude 
to. In 1910, during frequent conversations with my Russian col- 
league at Constantinople, as we had many matters at that time which 
were of mutual interest, and among others the question of railway 
concessions, in the course of those conversations he was very anxious 
that his Government should be able to form some understanding 
or arrangement with the American companj^ with regard to certain 
rights Avhich Russia claimed in connection with transportation. He 
presented the matter to me, which I received very sympathetically, 
and in the course of the pourparlers or conversations he asked me 
whether I had ever been in Russia, and whether I knew Russia. I 
said, "Yes," that I knew Russia, that I had never been there, but chat 
we in America had a great many messengers from Russia and we 
naturally knew a great deal about it. He informed m.e that I had 
a great many friends there — which I think is true. Among others 
were my colleagues on The Hague tribunal, and many diplomats 
whom I have met in my diplomatic career. He said that he hoped 
I would go there because the Government would deem it a great 
privilege to be able to confer with me regarding these railwaj^s in 
Turkey, especially those protected lines of railway that the American 
companies were desiring to get concessions from, on the part of 
Turkey. Well, I told him that I had intended if time permitted, 
sometime, on my going or returning from Turkey, to go via Russia, 
and he said he hoped I would go and he would be glad to give me 
letters to some of the leading men in Russia. He said, " Of course, 
Mr. Ambassador, you do not need any letters, but there are certain 
men whom you might meet officially and whom I would like very 
much to have the opoortunity of meeting you." 



72 TEKMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Three or four weeks passed by and the representative from the 
Eussian Embassy came to me and said his ambassador had left on 
leaA^e, and he hoped I would go through St. Petersburg. I told him 
at the time, " You have cholera in Eussia ; I understand there are 
about 100,000 cases, and I do not go for pleasure tours where there 
is an epidemic of cholera." 

That is all I know about this incident that has been referred to in 
connection with my passport being refused on the part of Eussia. I 
certainly never would have presented a passport in order to go to 
Eussia. I have too high a regard for the dignity and importance 
of a diplomatic representative of our Government to ask for per- 
mission to enter any country on the face of the earth. 

Mr. Legare. That was a mere rumor, then? 

Mr. Straus. That was a mere rumor. But the newspapers had 
the statement that permission had been granted to the American 
minister, Oscar Straus, to come into Eussia. It may be assumed 
that when I indicated the possibility or probability of my passing 
through Eussia my Eussian colleague notified his Government and 
his Government may have issued or notified its own officials of my 
possible coming, and as I am pretty generally known to be a Jew, I 
imagine the two things were put together. But personally I know 
no more than I have stated to you. 

Mr. Sharp. Have you any reason or evidence to believe that there 
are American private interests opposing the abrogation of this 
treaty ? 

Mr. Straus. I have no knowledge upon that subject. 

Mr. Sharp. There has been a great deal in the papers about cer- 
tain pressure being brought to bear on account of certain financial 
interests in Eussia, and I did not know but what you had investi- 
gated that. 

Mr. Straus. I have no personal knowledge upon that subject. I 
have seen those reports, and some of our large trusts, which have in- 
terests in Eussia, fear that the abrogation of this treaty might in- 
terfere with the prospects of their receiving concessions from the 
Eussian Government ; but I have no direct knowledge upon the sub- 
ject. 

The Chairman. After careful consideration, you are in favor of 
the abrogation of the treaty as the best solution of the problem, are 
you not? 

Mr. Straus. I regard it as the only solution of the problem. [Ap- 
plause.] I regard it as the only method of making any possible ne- 
gotiations that may be in the air between the State Department and 
the Government of Eussia, as the only practical way, if there is any- 
thing in those negotiations, anything more than there has appeared 
in the last 40 years, of bringing them to a conclusion. For, as a mat- 
ter of fact, if we give the notice they have 12 months' time to come to 
an understanding with us. If we do not take this stand, it will be a 
further encouragement to the Government of Eussia in the belief 
that we in this country put the dollar before the man. As has al- 
ready been stated, our entire trade with Eussia is 1 per cent of our 
total foreign trade, but I believe if it were 99 per cent of our total 
foreign trade that the Members of Congress, of both Houses of 
Congress, understanding this subject, as they are now beginning 
to understand it, would not for the whole trade of the United States 



TERMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 73 

stand in the way of vindicating the rights of American citizens 
abroad. [Applause.] 

The Chairman. The next speaker will be Mr. Abram I. Ellms^ 
regent of the New York University and a member of the Board of 
Delegates on Civil Rights of the Union of American Hebrew Con- 
gregations. 

STATEMENT OF ABRAM I. EIKXJS, ESQ. 

Mr. Elkus. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
Board of Delegates on Civil Rights of the Union of American He- 
brew Congregations and the Independent Order of B'nai B'rith have 
caused to be prepared a treatise on the international law covering 
this subject, and asked me to present it to this honorable committee 
and to say one word in their behalf. I appreciate the courtesy of 
Mr. Marshall in letting me say a word now. It appears, Mr. Chair- 
man and gentlemen, that the discrimination now practiced by Russia 
toward the citizens of the United States has been practiced by other 
countries many years ago, not only against the citizens of the United 
States but citizens of France and England. Switzerland did the same 
thing as to some of its Cantons, and also the Empire of Turkey. And 
in each instance the governments whose citizens were excluded forced 
those countries — in one case by the withdrawal of the treaty abso- 
lutely — and in the other by negotiation to withdraw the obnoxious 
provisions, and as long ago as 1864 the Empire of France promul- 
gated this doctrine : 

No distinction may be recognized in the enjoyment of civil and political 
rights between a French Jew and a French Catholic or Protestant. This equal- 
ity of rights must also follow a citizen beyond the frontier ; and the principles 
of our Constitution do not authorize the Government to protect its subjects in 
a different manner according to which faith he professes. 

The Government of France compelled that declaration by forcing 
the withdrawal of the treaty which England claimed authorized its 
obnoxious performances, and a new treaty was made, which omitted 
those restrictions. 

And I say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that if France in 1864» 
under an Empire, could force the realization of those principles and 
doctrines which it laid down, is not the United States large enough 
and broad enough and strong enough to force them now upon the 
Empire of Russia? [Applause.] 

Mr. Marshall. I think Judge Sanders would like to make a few 
remarks. 

The Chairman. Then the next speaker will be Judge Sanders, of 
New York. 

STATEMENT OF JUDGE LEON SANDERS, OF NEW YORK CITY. 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
have no desire to trespass upon the time of this committee. I be- 
lieve the subject under consideration has been thoroughly discussed 
by men more conversant with the subject than I am; but I feel that 
I owe it to those I represent to say to. you that we are in thorough 
accord with the objects and premises of this resolution, and we hope 
that this committee will report it out unanimously and that the 
House of Representsitives and the Senate will concur therein. 



74 TEEMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

I represent here, as the grand master of the order, the Independent 
Order of B'rith Abraham, an organization that has 150,000 members ; 
and, as president, the National Jewish Fraternal Congress, having a 
membership of almost one-half a million, including all the Jewish 
orders doing fraternal work in the United States. I represent them 
and I speak for them in saying that all our lodges, of all our orga- 
nizations, are unanimously in favor of these resolutions. Not simply 
because they affect the rights of our people as Jews, but because we 
feel that this is an American question and that it affects the rights of 
every American citizen. 

We ask that this Congress go on record that these United States 
will not sell the birthright of its citizens for a mess of Eussian pot- 
tage, if the only opposition to it be based on the fact that the com- 
merce of some of the people of the United States may be affected 
thereby. 

We strongly feel that the committee and that Congress should 
vindicate the honor of American citizenship and the only way to do 
that is by taking this action. It may be drastic, but it is the only 
thing to do. For 40 years every avenue of diplomacy has been 
traveled by our representatives. For 40 years they have tried in 
€very possible way to find a solution. We have now come to the end. 
Either we are true to ourselves or not. Either we are going to stand 
up and fight for the principles we have advocated, upon which this 
action will be based, or we are false to every principle which we have 
been professing and preaching as long as the foundation of this Gov- 
ernment. 

The Chairman. As I understand, you and the people you represent 
favor the adoption of the resolution to abrogate the treaty ? 

Mr. Sanders. We do, and every lodge and order has adopted reso- 
lutions to that effect, and our Members of Congress has received 
copies to that effect. 

Mr. Marshall. How many lodges are there? 

Mr. Sanders. The Independent Order of B'rith Abraham has 632 
lodges, and the National Jewish Fraternal Congress has a total mem- 
bership of close on to half a million, probably representing nine- 
tenths of the entire Jewish citizens of the United States. 

The Chairman. The next speaker will be Mr. Samuel Dorf. 

STATEMENT OF ME. SAMTJEL DORF, OF NEW YORK CITY, PRESI- 
DENT OF THE ORDER OF B'RITH ABRAHAM. 

Mr. DoRF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the legal aspect of the 
case has been so fully set forth that I as a layman would not dare 
to try to suggest anj'thing in addition. I speak as a layman, as 
president of the Order B'rith Abraham. We have T4,000 members, 
scattered over the United States. The order was instituted in 1859 
for a special purpose. Our mission in this country was to get hold, 
as soon as possible, of every new member of our faith and bring 
him into our lodges for the purpose of Americanizing him and ac- 
quainting him with the institutions of the country, the language of 
the country, and the customs of the country. 

The Chairman. And make them good citizens ? 

Mr. DoRF. That is our object, to ma]?:e them good citizens. I want 
to say to you that there are thousands of Jews to-day who are mem- 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 75 

bers of and wear the insignia of Christian orders, and they will tell 
you that the primary school for them was our order; that they first 
learned the fraternal life with us before they could intermingle with 
the other orders. 

My executive board has instructed me to appear here to-day and 
beg of this committee to do something which will relieve us of the 
disabilities under which we are suffering. 

The Chairman. The people you represent favor the adoption of 
this resolution providing for the abrogation of the treaty between the 
United States and Eussia ? 

Mr. DoRF. Yes, sir. And further, we would like to stop talking 
about it so much — we have been talking about it for many years — and 
do something. The great trouble, I think, has been that we have 
talked too much and have done too little. I do not doubt for one 
minute that the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
State of this administration and the Secretaries of State of past 
administrations for 40 years have tried their very best to overcome 
this matter; but my objection is that the President fails to tell Con- 
gress that he has not succeeded. If he would only tell Congress, " I 
have tried and have had no success," Congress would know how to 
act. I as a layman look at this whole thing as a joke. The Russian 
diplomat has simply been playing the Yankee diplomat in such a way 
that he simply staj^s over there and laughs. 

The Chairman. If this resolution is adopted he will not think it is 
such a joke, will he? 

Mr. JDoRF. No; but the only way to make them think otherwise is 
to act. 

A question was asked by one of the members of the committee, 
when Mr. Marshall was speaking, as to what would be the effect on 
the Russian Jews in Russia, what would be the effect of the adoption 
of the resolution on those people, and I felt very kindly toward the 
gentleman that asked that question and showed an interest in the 
matter. My opinion is that there would be less bloodshed after this 
is adopted and for this reason: The Russian Government tells the 
Russian Jew, " You have no right to complain in this country, be- 
cause your brethren who live in free America are no better off than 
you are; they are under a political disability"; but just as soon as 
the Russian Government will find out that the American Congress 
will fight for the Jewish race and place them equally before the law^ 
that will make the Russian Government at least begin to respect 
their own Jews. [Applause.] 

Mr. Legare. That is the kind of answer I was looking for when I 
put the question. 

Mr. DoRF. I am not a Russian and I would not go to Russia. I 
would not go there if you would give me a viseed passport. I. do not 
want to see Russia at all. I am satisfied here. 

So we are not fighting here for the Jews of Russia. We will take 
care of that later. The first thing we want is for the Government to 
keep faith with us. When I became a citizen of the United States^ 
at least when I made an application to become a citizen, I first had 
to suffer two and a half years. The suffering was really welcome to 
me, because I had a star of hope to look up to. I knew that soon 
I would make my first application to become a citizen of the United 
States. ^Vhen I made the application I was told before I could go 



76 TERMIISrATIOlSr OF TtUi TREATY OF 1832. 

any further I would have to swear off all allegiance to the country 
where I was born. I did that, and then I was on probation for 
two and a half years more before I could get my citizen papers. 
But then, when the happy day came when I swore allegiance to 
this country, all at once I found out, when I asked for a passport, 
that while I got a large, beautifully engraved paper, with the great 
seal of the United States on it, yet inside is to be found this little 
letter, that little note which makes a man think he has been fooled. 
I thoug:ht I had the right to go anywhere in the world T please 
with this jDassport, but the Secretary of State of the United States 
notifies me " If you are a Jew, in spite of the fact that we have a 
treaty with Kussia, do not go there because we can not give you any 
protection." 

Mr. Sharp. It is like an indorsement without recourse ? 

Mr. DoRF. Yes. All the people I represent appeal to this com- 
mittee, and through it to the Congress of the United States, to place 
us where you promised to place us, on an equality with all other 
citizens of the Nation, equal in the eyes of the law. You say this is 
a Jewish question. If this was a Catholic or Protestant question, I 
would be here just the same pleading for them. 

The Chairman. We say it is an American question. 

Mr. DoRF. Well, I would plead for them just as well. We beg of 
you to relieve us of this humiliation. It is a humiliating position we 
are placed in. The only way to relieve us is to pass this resolution, 
and the rest will take care of itself. 

Mr. Marshall. I would like to have Rev. Dr. Foster say a few 
words. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI SOLOMON FOSTER, OF NEWARK, N. J. 

Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am 
corresponding secretary of the Central Conference of American 
Rabbi, an organization made up of 210 of the rabbis of this country 
throughout the length and breadth of our land. From time to time 
at our national ventuons, as well as in our various homes, the resolu- 
tions introduced by yourself have been unanimously indorsed. We 
Jiave worked side by side with the citizens of other faiths in our 
various cities to educate the people at large in the great moral issue 
involved in this passport question. I might tell you, Mr. Chairman 
and gentlemen, that the hearty cooperation we have met with in our 
various interviews on the part of the people of all faiths gives us 
every reason to believe that it is not a matter which is of vital inter- 
est alone to the Jewish people, but of vital interest to every citizen 
of intelligence, and that the citizens generally will heartily in- 
dorse this action. 

In fact, they have declared themselves so in mass meetings through- 
out the country. Letters have been written and resolutions have been 
passed by our leading citizens of all faiths. They have worked side 
by side in order that we might enrich our citizenship. I speak also 
in behalf of the Alumni Association of the Hebrew Union College in 
Cincinnati, of which association I happen to be the president. The 
same action has been taken, to the effect that this evil shall be cor- 
rected. 



TEEMIlSTATIOlSr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 77 

I would like to add one word to the discussion, I think this will 
react as a benefit to our own people and the citizens of this land. I 
think when we get through this agitation we are going to have a 
clearer interpretation of our citizenship. It seems to me we need 
some danger to point out to us the blessings of our citizenship, and 
when we have passed through it I think it is going to count for good 
and the meaning of American citizenship will be enriched and beau- 
tified, and for that reason I hope we will act quickly and act in the 
proper way. 

The Chairman. Doctor, you and the people you represent favor 
the adoption of this resolution, providing for the abrogation of the 
treaty, do you? 

Mr. Foster. Yes; the resolution was passed unanimously in St. 
Paul last July, during the time of the extra session of Congress, and 
Congress and the President were so informed. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we have with us to-day Mr. Bernard 
Nolan, secretary of the national citizens' committee, who desires 
to present to the committee a large number of letters from distin- 
guished people throughout the country to be filed with the committee, 
the letters to be used as the committee may determine. 

STATEMENT OF ME. BEENARD NOIAF, SECEETAEY OF THE 
NATIONAL CITIZENS' COMMITTEE. 

Mr. Nolan. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have here some 900 
letters; 320 of them are from Congressmen, 28 from United States 
Senators, 38 from governors, and 22 from mayors of cities, and the 
balance of them are from business men and citizens of the country. 
This committee has sent out some 50,000 circular letters asking for 
the indorsement of the various religious denominations throughout 
the United States of these resolutions, and the answer has been very, 
very favorable. This committee last Wednesday unanimously 
adopted, without a question, a resolution in favor of the abrogation 
of the treaty, expressing the wish of the national citizens' committee 
of the United States that it shall be adopted without any further 
delay. 

This question is an American question pure and simple, and the 
words used in the literature sent out by Mr. McAdoo, words which 
appear in all our literature, on the letter heads, and so on, typify 
American ideals.^ It appeals to me in sleeting the different things 
that should go with a movement of this kind. This reads : 

The great seal of the United States of America attached to a passport ought 
to be honored by every friendly civilized government, regardless of the creed 
or racial antecedents of the holder. Discrimination of any class of citizens is 
wrong in morals and principle. 

That was Mr. McAdoo's contribution to the cause. Here is another 
from a great American: 

The American citizen should be like the citizen of ancient Rome. Wherever 
he goes the power of the greatest country in the world should go with him and 
stand behind him. Our country is the greatest country in the world, and it is 
the character and quality, the fidelity and devotion of our citizens that have 
made our country great ; that have made its name honored throughout the world. 

What our citizens have done for their country, our country should do for its 
citizens. If our country is the most respected, the most considered, the most hon- 
ored of all the countries of the world, then our citizens, wherever they go with 



78 TEKMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

the passport of the United States in their hands, should be and shall be the 
most respected, the most considered, arwi the most honored of all citizens of 
the world. 

In the protection of its citizens, in the maintenance of its own self-respect, 
in the defense of its own honor, let the United States assert its dignity and, if 
necessary, employ its power. 

That was by William R. Hearst. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, you may resume your argument. 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS MARSHALL, ESQ.— Continued. 

Mr. Marshall. I will try to be very brief in the further remarks 
I will have to make, and 1 will be particularly glad to answer any 
question. 

I want to meet the argument of those who are fearful that some- 
thing may happen if this treaty is abrogated. First of all, one of the 
members of the committee asked me as to whether I had any cases 
affecting Methodists or Presbyterians or Baptists 

Mr. KJENDALL. Any Protestant sect. 

Mr. Marshall. I have a letter from Bishop Hoban, bishop of 
Scranton, who is the Catholic bishop up there. At the time we ap- 
peared before Congress in the early part of the year we distributed 
literature on this subject for the purpose of educating the people into 
a realizing sense of the importance of this proposition, which we have 
now in concrete form before the committee, and we received in reply 
the following letter : 

Chancelloe's Office, 
315 Wyoming Avenue, Scranton, Pa. 
Mr. Mayee Sulzbeegee, 

President American Jewish Committee, Neio York. 

Deae Sie : Replying to your communication of the 8th instant, the right 
reverend bishop wishes me to say that he is in hearty accord with the movement 
started by your committee. It was only a year and a half ago that he himself 
was prohibited from entering Russia for only a two days' visit. As you no 
doubt know, Catholic priests in general are prohibited from entering Russia. 
He wishes your movement every success. 

Very truly, yours, A. J. Beennan, Secretary. 

On the 16th of February, 1911, we had a hearing before this com- 
mittee on the then pending resolutions. Our attention was called to 
resolutions which had been introduced by Congressman Sheppard, 
of Texas, the burden of which was that there had been an exclusion 
of Protestant missionaries from Eussia, and expressing the protest 
of Congress. I think you will find that resolution upon the files of 
this committee. 

The Chairman. They were Baptist missionaries. 

Mr. Marshall. I wish also to call attention to the fact that this 
question is one which aroused interest not only among the Jewish 
organizations, which is very natural, but among other religious 
bodies. 

At a meeting held in the city of New York, about a month ago, 
by the Federation of Churches, an organization which is composed 
of the principal churches located in the city of New York and its 
immediate vicinity, and representing more than TOO different or- 
ganizations, resolutions were adopted asking for the immediate 
abrogation of the treaty. I shall present to this honorable committee 



TERMINATION OP TPIE TREATY OF 1832. 79 

copies of those resolutions. I have not a copy here, but I will see 
to it that they are forwarded. 

At a meeting held recently by the National German- American Alli- 
ance of the United States of America, an organization incorporated by 
act of Congress, and representing the citizens of America of German 
birth or descent, and consisting largely of Protestants and Catholic 
Germans, although to a slight extent Jewish Germans, resolutions 
were adojoted, and the terms of those resolutions were as follows : 

Resolved, That the nonrecoguition of the American passport by the Russiau 
Goverhmeiit on account of the religion of the holder thereof is violative of the 
treaty of 1832, and therefore Congress be petitioned to abrogate that treaty. 

I could add a large number of similar resolutions b}^ other national 
bodies and will make an effort to forward them at an early date. 

I also desire to say that I have been specially requested by the 
Independent Order of B'nai B'rith, an organization which has a 
distinguished membership of Jews throughout the country, to repre- 
sent them here on this occasion, and the president, Mr. Adolph Kraiis, 
of Chicago, has authorized me to represent them, although I. am not 
a member of that or any other fraternal order, and to say that this 
organization is in hearty accord with the resolutions under con- 
sideration, especially mentioning the resolutions introduced by Mr. 
Sulzer. 

Hon. Simon Wolf, a well-known resident of Washington, who has 
for many years appeared before various committees of Congress on 
matters pertaining to good citizenship, is unfortunately unable to 
attend on account of illness. He is the chairm.an of the Board of 
Delegates on Civil Rights of the American Hebrew Congregation. 
He likewise requested me to speak in behalf of that organization and 
to say that they indorse these resolutions. 

Mr. Kendall. Before you pass to another subject, you have given 
two concrete examples. Have you some in addition ? 

Mr. Marshall. I should have mentioned the case of Oscar Ham- 
merstein, a well-known citizen of New York, of international reputa- 
tion, who created the great opera house in New York and the opera 
house in Philadelphia as well, and also the new one in London. He 
desired to visit Russia in order to secure Russian singers and dancers, 
and he was denied a visa of his passport, and in this way a serious 
artistic loss to Russia and to the United States was brought about. 

Mr. DiFENDERFER. Mr. Marshall, as a matter of fact, does not the 
Russian Government restrain its subjects from leaving the country? 

Mr. Marshall. Well, if it is meant by that 

Mr. DiFENDERFER. I liave particular reference now to a prominent 
singer in Russia, whom they will not permit to leave their country. 

Mr. Marshall. That is possibly due to the fact that he is under 
contractual relations. 

Mr. DiFENDERFER. No ; no contractual relations enter into the case. 
You have spoken of religious organizations petitioning. Have you 
any petitions from nonreligious organizations ? 

Mr. Marshall. The legislatures of 12 States are nonreligious. 

Mr. DiFENDERFER. That is what I wanted to know, because I do not 
belong to any religious organization. 

Mr. Marshall. And the National German Alliance is nonreligious. 
The mass meeting in the city of New York was nonreligious. There 
is no question as to what the attitiide of the Democratic organization 

19831—11 6 



80 TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

of the city of New York is upon that subject. It is stated that that 
is nonreligious ! 

Dr. Adler. Prof. Hyvernat, professor of oriental languages at the 
Catholic University, several years ago went with a French priest 
to study the inscriptions at Lake Van. Prof. Hyvernat is one of the 
greatest living authorities on Armenian inscriptions. When it was 
found out that he was a Catholic priest he was expelled from Russia 
in 24 hours. 

Mr. Kendall. Was he a citizen of this country ? 

Dr. Adler. I have no knowledge as to that. He has been here at 
the Catholic University for probably 12 years. 

Mr. Town SEND. I sympathize with your contention that the abro- 
gation of this treaty will establish the citizenship equality of Jews 
with other citizens here; but I would like to get from you what you 
think will be the status of American Jews in Russia after that ? 

Mr. Marshall. It will be one of two things. If Russia after the 
abrogation of this treaty declines to make a new treaty, she probably 
will not permit American Jews to enter Russia : but the probability 
is that Russia will not permit herself to be isolated by such a Gov- 
ernment as the United States by not entering into treaty relations 
with them. The probability is that she will enter into a modern 
treaty, not an antiquated one like this, which ought to be abrogated 
anyway, without regard to this particular matter we are discussing. 

Mr. TowNSEND. I think that you, this morning, and Mr. Straus, 
this afternoon, spoke of negotiations pending. But the article of the 
treaty that is under discussion is satisfactory in terms now, as I 
understand it. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. TowNSEND. Just what would we negotiate with Russia that 
would be more satisfactory than the present treaty, so far as the part 
of it particularly under consideration is concerned ? 

Mr. Marshall. I suppose the idea would be either to revise the 
treaty by using language that even Russia can not evade 

Mr. TowNSEND. That would grant these rights? 

Mr. Marshall. Precisely. 

Mr. Kendall. Is it not your notion that if we abrogate this treaty, 
leaving Russia isloated, that she could not remain in that condition ; 
and if we should do that would not England and Germanj^, and 
jDerhaps France, follow the example? 

^ir. Marshall. Yes, undoubtedly. The German press is now 
replete with articles on this subject which indicate that Germany is 
only awaiting the example of this Congress. If America, which is not 
tied to Russia by these secret treaties and other entangling alliances, 
will take the lead, there is no doubt that Germany and othfer Govern- 
ments will follow, because they can not afford to have a different 
situation exist with regard to their citizens from that which would be 
created by the abrogation of this treaty and the adoption of a new 
treaty with Russia. Therefore we feel that this is the entering wedge. 
England has all sorts of treaty relations with Russia that nobody 
knows anything about. Once in a while they come to the surface and 
we hear of spheres of influence, for instance, in Persia we hear of 
England having a sphere of influence in Southern Persia and of 
Russia having a sphere of influence in Northern Persia. Those 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 81 

things, of course, e.ffect the Enghsh Government, which has no such 
constitution as we have. England is constituted on an entirely 
different theory from the American Government. The samic thing is 
true of France. France; although it has always been outspoken in 
favor of liberty, is unfortunately for her the prmcipal creditor of 
Russia, and France, therefore, can not afford to take the lead in a 
movement of this sort. 

It did make an effort some time ago to protest against the violation 
of a treaty entered into between Rusisia and herself which in ex- 
pressed terms allowed French Jewish commercial travellers to enter 
Russia and which treaty provisions were violated. In a very elabo- 
rate argument on that subject, which I will present to you as a part 
of the evidence which we have to offer, France indicated the way that 
Russia was treating even her great friend, France, the country which 
has been furnishing Russia with the sinews of war and backing other 
operations for many years. The pamphlet which I have is the 
pamphlet entitled "The Passport Question," which I ask to have 
made a part of the record, because it is replete with facts which bear 
upon this proposition. 

The Chairman. There being no objection, that will be m^ade a part 
of the record. (See Appendix II, p. 239 et seq.) 

Mr. Marshall. Now, one of the members of the committee passed 
me a note saying that Russia recognized the treaty for nearly 40 
years, up to 1867 or 1868, and asked what was the immediate cause 
of the changed attitude with reference to the provisions of the treaty. 
The answer to that is largely found in the very admirable speech of 
Judge Sulzberger. I could not assume or undertake to repeat the 
remarkable historical and philosophical disquisition he entered into 
as indicating the psychological influences of the Russian mind which 
brought about that change. The fact is that in 1784 Queen Catherine 
issued a ukase in which she invited Jews to come into Russia from 
neighboring countries, and there was a large influx of Jews from 
Germany and other countries into Russia, and' they were expressly 
given the right to reside in the several cities of Russia and to observe 
their own religious faith according to their own conscience, and that 
condition of things continued in Russia for several 3^ears. Such was 
the state of affairs in 1832, practically, when this treaty was entered 
into. It was not until the time which has been referred to, about 
1867 or 1868, that Russia's entire attitude with regard to the Euro- 
pean v/orld v/as changed. There arose the idea of the pan-Russian 
Church, the pan-Russian Government. 

There was the idea that it was only the Russian races which were 
to be predominant. So Poles and Finns were put under the harrow, 
and so the Pale of Settlement in Russia, if not at that time created, 
was certainly made more uninhabitable, and the rights of Jews out- 
side of the Pale were limited. That, I said, is purely and soleh^ the 
result of a new political theory, a chauvinistic theory, which gained 
hold in Russia and from which it has not yet recovered. 

I call the attention of the committee especially on that subject, 
looking at it from the historical standpoint, to the most admirable 
resume which is to be found in the dispatch of Secretary Blaine in 
1881 on this proposition. 

Mr. Flood. I have seen it stated in the press that this legislation 
against Jews began in Russia in 1824 ? 



82 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Marshall. There was more or less of it then- 



Mr. Flood. Aiid I understand from you that it was not until about 
1867? 

Mr. Marshall. The great mass of legislation against Jews was not 
until about that time. The so-called May laws of Ignative were 
passed in 1882. It was a sort of progressive legislation. There were 
of course sporadic cases of legislation against the Jev/s during the 
first quarter of the nineteenth century. 

Mr. Flood. Against the permission of foreign Jews going into 
Russia, against the passport being issued to foreign Jews ? 

Mr. Marshall. No; that question did not come up. There was 
no such legislation; there was no such question which arose with re- 
gard to the passport until long afterwards. The first case that ever 
came under consideration with regard to the passport arose in 1867 
or 1868. 

Mr. Flood. Was there any legislation as early as 1824 that pro- 
hibited Jews from other countries from entering Russia? 

Mr. Marshall. There was not. 

Mr. Flood. What v/as the earliest legislation on that subject ? 

Mr. Marshall. Whether it was legislation or an edict 

Mr. Flood. I mean an edict, yes. 

Mr. Marshall. I should say it was about that time. 

Mr. Flood. About what time ? 

Mr. Townsend. 1867 or 1868, he said. 

Mr. Marshall. Let me read from the dispatch of Secretary 
Blaine on this subject, July 29, 1881. This is to be found in the 
correspondence which I will leave here : 

From this time [1817] down to 1860, I can find no trace of the enforcement, espe- 
cially against American citizens, of the restrictions against Jewish travel and residence 
which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia was signed. It is a 
significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on international law, 
writing during this period upon the legislation of all Europe as effecting the persons 
and rights of aliens, make no reference to such disabilities. 

There is a great deal more of that matter which is to be found in the 
literature I have put in evidence. 

Now, several points have been made for the purpose of a possible 
excuse for the Russian Government, which I will briefly consider. 

The first section of the treaty reads as follows: 

The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the 
ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party wherever foreign commerce is 
permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of 
said territories in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect 
the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on 
condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and par- 
ticularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce. 

The argument has been suggested that with the condition that they 
shall submit to the laws and ordinances prevailing in Russia or in the 
United States, as the case may be, Russia might take away the rights 
of a Jew, might say that, though a Jew was a citizen of the United 
States and entitled to the protection of this treaty, they could 
exclude Jews. The argument would be that if tliey could do it vv^ith 
Jews they could do it with others, and finally it might be that simply 
one class of favored individuals would be left. That is not to be 
thought of for a moment. This treaty must be considered as a treaty 
between two parties. It is a treaty that was intended to accomplish 



TEKMIlSrATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 83 

something for the benefit of both parties. It is a treaty by which it 
was intended that the same rights should exist in favor of every United 
States citizen and every Russian citizen. It is unthinkable that the 
United States should enter into a treaty witli Russia which had 
within its provisions an exception for or against any particular class 
of citizens. 

Mr. Cooper. I observe that the language is ''inhabitants" and not 
''citizens." 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, because that is broader. It is even stronger. 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, it is broader. 

Mr. Marshall. They can not make a point on that. 

Mr. Cooper. Except in this way. An inhabitant of this country 
might be a citizen of England and we could not complain. Or he 
might be a Russian over here, not acquiring citizenship here. 

Mr. Marshall. We are interested only so far as citizens are con- 
cerned. 

Mr. Cooper. I understand, but I do not know but they might 
make some question on that language. 

Mr. Marshall. No, they have not done so. Let us put ourselves 
in the place of the parties who negotiated the treaty. Mr. Buchanan 
and Count Nesselrode negotiated the treaty. Now, if James Bu- 
chanan, who was subsequently President of the United States, had 
assumed to enter into an agreement whereby it was tacitly or ex- 
pressly stated that the rights under that treaty should be taken away 
from Jews, or from Catholics, or from citizens of Mississippi, or Texas, 
or New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania, everybody would have risen in 
arms and said "We must look at this treaty as a treaty which is 
entered into by the two Governments for the benefit of all of their 
citizens, not for the benefit of a part of them." And if this treaty 
would be susceptible of such an interpretation as that, which is 
claimed for it, that would be the best reason in the world why you 
should now at this moment repeal it and abrogate it. But those 
words do not mean anything of the sort. They are the ordinary 
terms which are put into all laws, and v^^ould be read in there even if 
they were not actually there, that the persons who go into a foreign 
country for the purpose of travel and sojourn must observe the laws 
and ordinances that prevail there. 

They are not superior to the general laws of the land. If they make 
a contract, contracts are governed by the laws of the country in 
which the contract is entered into, and if they commit murder, or 
theft, or burglary, or any other offense they are to be dealt with in 
accordance with the laws of the land in which the offense is committed. 
But that is an entirely different proposition from that which says, 
"We have entered into an agreement with you that you shall come 
into this country" 

The Chairman. That applies to all the world ? 

Mr. Marshall. That applies to all the world; yes. "We have 
entered into an agreement with you that you shall come into this 
country, but you can go so far, and no further. When you get to 
the borders that passport is of no value, and you have to conform 
to the law of Russia, that no Jew shall enter or no Catholic shall be 
here, or no ]3erson living west of the Mississippi River shall come in 
here." I think that is enough in regard to that proposition. 



84 TEEMI NATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

One of the newspapers which sometimes allows itself to publish 
news from the Russian standpoint and. tries to arouse prejudices 
says, "If we ask for the abrogation of this treaty, this will precipitate 
the question of Chinese immigration in a somxewhat formidable wa,y. 
Russia has Chinese subjects in Asia, and any compact opening the 
way to them would at once introduce an alarming factor into the 
equation." 

It is really touching that Russia should have such tender regard 
for the United States with respect to the Chinese question. I think 
we are able to handle that question ourselves. It is preposterous, 
when we come to consider it. There is no parallel between the 
questions of the Chinese in this country and the Jews who go to 
Russia. In the first place, the Jews who go to Russia do not go under 
this charter, do not claim the right to go there for the purpose of 
immigrating into Russia. They go there merely for the purpose of 
traveling or sojourning or for the purpose of attending to their 
business or their affairs. 

Undoubtedly Russia would have the right to say that she would 
not allow Jews to immigrate into Russia, just as we have a right to 
say, under the Constitution, we shall allow any Jews to immigrate 
into the United States, that is, for the purpose of having a permanent 
residence here. 

But with respect to the Chinese, let me call attention to the fact 
that whatever legislation there has been with regard to Chinese 
exclusion, has been with the express consent of the Chinese Govern- 
ment and is a result of an express provision in the treaties between 
China and the United States which gives to the United States the 
right to exclude the Chinese. If the treaty between the United 
States and Russia should contain a provision that Russia should be 
permitted to exclude Jews from Russia or any other class of American 
citizens from Russia, then, of course, we could not complain, because 
that would be with our consent. 

I do not believe the day will ever come when the treaty-making 
power of the United States will give its consent to any such provi- 
sion with regard to any part of our citizenship. But if we did, why 
the Government would have no right to complain, however much 
those who are legislated agamst might have a right to complain to 
their own Government, because this matter has been discussed by 
men of standing in the world, and I feel that we might as well clinch 
that nail at this particular point, so that that head will not appear 
above the surface of the plank again. 

The Burlingame treaty, concluded on July 28, 1868, and proclaimed 
on February 5, 1870, did not contain the unqualified declaration to be 
found in Article I of the Russian treaty, which read as follows: 

There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective states shall 
mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territory of each 
party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn 
and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to theif affairs, 
and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the 
country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordin- 
ances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning 
commerce. 

Article I of the Burlingame treaty, qualifies the rights accorded 
by the Emperor of China under concessions made by him to the 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 85 

citizens or subjects of foreign powers. Article lA^ provides, that the 
citizens of the United States and China of every reUgious persuasion, 
and Chinese subjects in the United States, shall enjoy every liberty of 
conscience, and shall be exempt from all disability or persecution on 
account of their religious faith or worship in either country. Article 
V, while recognizing the inherent and inalienable right of man to 
change his home and allegiance, the high contracting parties "join 
reprobating any other than an entirely voluntary emigration for these 
purposes. They consequently agree to j^ass laws making it a penal 
offense for a citizen of the United States or Chinese subjects to take 
Chinese subjects either to the United States or to any foreign country, 
or for a Chinese subject or citizens of the United States to take citizens 
of the United States to China or to any other foreign country, without 
their free and voluntary consent, respectively." Article VI provides 
that "citizens of the United States visiting or residmg in China shall 
enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to 
travel or residence a,s may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of 
the most favored nation. And, reciprocally, Chinese subjects visitmg 
or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, im- 
munities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there 
be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nations. 
But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization 
upon citizens of the United States in China nor upon subjects of 
China in the United States. 

Now, that treaty was made in 1868. In ISSO that treaty was 
amended by a compact which was proclaimed on the 5th of October, 
1881, and that contained these words, showing that there was con- 
ferred on the United States rights and privileges which are not con- 
ferred upon Kussia by the treaty of 1832: 

Article 1. Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the 
coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects 
or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of 
the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of 
China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend 
such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or 
suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who go to the United 
States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation 
taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to 
enforce the regulation, limitation, or suspension of immigration, and immigrants 
shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse. 

Art. 2. Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, 
students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and household serv- 
ants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go 
and come of theii" own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privi- 
leges, and immunities and exceptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects 
of the most favored nations. 

The convention regulating Chinese immigration, concluded March 
17, 1894, and proclaimed December 18, 1894, is equally clear on this 
point. Articles III and IV read as follows : 

Art. III. The provisions 'of this convention shall not affect the right at present 
enjoyed of Chinese subjects being officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers 
for curiosity or pleasure, but not laborers, of coming to the United States and residing 
therein. To entitle such Chinese subjects as are above described to admission into 
the United States they may produce a certificate from their Government or the Gov- 
ernment where they last resided, visaed by the diplomatic or consular representative 
of the United States in the country or port whence they depart. 

It is also agreed that Chinese laborers shall continue to enjoy the privilege of 
transit across the territory of the United States in the course of their journey to and 



86 TERMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

from other countries, subject to such regulations by the Government of the United 
States as may be necessary to prevent said privileges of transit from being abused. 

Art. IV. In pursuance of Article III of the immigration treaty between the United 
States and China, signed at Peking on the seventeenth day of "^November, 1880 (the 
fifteenth day of the tenth month of Kwangshu, sixth year), it is hereby understood 
and agreed that Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or 
temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their per- 
sons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens 
of the most-favored nations, except the right to become naturalized citizens. And 
the Government of the United States reaffirms its obligation, as stated in said Article 
III, to exert all its power to secure protection to the persons and property of all Chinese 
subjects in the United States. 

Mr. Cooper. Does Russia grant citizenship to Chinamen? 

Mr. Marshall. No; there are very few people who have citizen- 
ship. It is only a handful among their teeming millions. 

Mr. Cooper. I was thinking of the use of the word inhabitants. If 
Chinamen should become inhabitants of Russia, how could we exclude 
them under their treaty? The}' might live there for the time being 
and become inhabitants. 

Mr. Marshall. We have not an}^ right to exclude anybody from 
Russia. 

The Chairman. We are going to abrogate the treaty. 

Mr. Cooper. But I was onl}- speaking; of how Russia would use us 
under this treaty. 

The Chairman. That is a dangerous thing. That is another reason 
why it should be abrogated. 

Mr. Cooper. There is every force in the world in the suggestion of 
mine. The word "citizen" should be used instead of the word 
"inhabitant." 

Mr. Marshall. That is perfectly satisfactory to us. 

]Mr. Cooper. They could have anybody an "inhabitant" of Russia. 

Mr. Marshall. As the law is, there is no exclusion of Mongolians. 

Mr. Cooper. Under that treaty we could not exclude anybody who 
lived in Russia; anybod}'' who was an inhabitant of Russia could come 
here, and hence the word "inhabitant" is an important word, I think. 

Mr. Marshall. That is an additional reason, then, for adopting this 
resolution. 

Mr. Cooper. That treaty was negotiated with Russia before the 
agitation of the Chinese question, but I think that word "inhabitant" 
should be "citizen." 

Mr. Marshall. Tlie question of Chinese immigration is one that 
has emanated from Russia, and I have endeavored to show it. 

Mr. Goodwin. I think that is covered by the Geary Act, not a 
treaty, but a statute, that ])rohibits the immigration of Mongolian 
laborers. 

Mr. Marshall. But the Geaiy Act was passed because of the right 
to pass it which was conferred by these treaties. 

Mr. Kendall. The Geary Act is bottomed on the treaty. 

Mr. Marshall. The Geary Act, as you will find, is founded on these 
treaties. 

Mr. Kendall. The Geary Act would have no validity at all if it 
had not been for the treaty that empowered tlie Government to enact 
legislation to carry it into effect, as I understand it. 

Mr. Goodwin. There was some question as to whether it referred 
to Islongolians. I accept your statement that it applies only to 
Chinamen. 



-^*tei. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 87 

Mr. IMarshall. There is another pomt which lias been discussed 
with regard to the "financial aspect of this matter. I am really 
ashamed to discuss the financial aspect of a question of this sort, 
])ut still it is well enough for us to have the exact figures. It has 
been stated by Judge Sulzberger and also Mr. Straus that the amount 
of the Russian trade with the United States amounts to only 1 per 
cent of our entire foreign trade. Now, I have here the Statistical 
Abstract of the United States for 1910, published in Washington in 
the present year, from which it appears that the entire exports from 
the United States to Russia during that year were $17,730,414; and 
that the entire amount of imports during that same time was 
117,377,212, making the exports exceed the imports by the amount of 
$452,599. 

The amount of our trade in the last 20 years has not increased 
very largely. It has averaged probably during that entire period 
not to exceed $10,000,000 a year. But if we are going to deal with 
the subject of trade and industry let me call this important fact to 
your attention, to indicate that the Jewish citizens who have been 
discriminated against by Russia are doing something for the pro- 
ductivity of this country, which is not generally appreciated. 

I had the honor of being called upon a year ago last summer as 
mediator to settle the cloakmakers' strike in New York City. Sev- 
enty thousand men were out on a strike and of these fully 60,000 were 
Jews. They had come to this country and were laboring at that 
useful vocation, manufacturing cloaks, suits, and skirts. That 
entire trade in which they were engaged, to the extent of 90 per 
cent of it at least, was in the hands of Jews. Many of them, a large 
proportion of them, were Jews who had immigrated into the United 
States from Russia. The total amount produced in that one single 
industry in the city of New York, by those Jewish citizens, was 
over $250,000,000 annually. Now, when you confront a proposi- 
tion of that sort, a productive industry which produced $250,000,000 
a year, against a total of $17,000,000 or thereabouts on each side of 
exports and imports with Russia, does not that whole question 
dwindle into insignificance'? Is it not a matter of absolutely no 
mportance whatsoever ? 

Mr. DiFENDERFEE. Tliis is not a question of dollars and cents: it 
IS not a question of religion; but it is a question of right, whether we 
shall maintain the dignity of the United States or not, not alone with 
Russia, but, I want to say, with countries nearer than Russia; for I 
have just come from the Isthmus of Panama, and I found that the 
American consuls there did not have any knowledge of the fact that 
two Americans had been incarcerated there for 9 and 14 months. 
And I am going to say this in connection with that subject: That in 
my judgment we have the greatest lot of namby-pamby representa- 
tives abroad of any important nation on earth, and I know, because 
I have been abroad and seen, and I would like to have asked Mr. Straus 
that question. It might have been a delicate question for him to 
have answered, but I believe he has been one of our best representa- 
tives abroad, one of the best men this country has ever sent abroad. 
He knows and many of us know that that is the condition abroad. 
Now. then, if we had representatives who would represent the coun- 
try correctly, I doubt if the Russians would dare do as they are doing 
to-dav. 



88 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 

The Chairman. When we take up the consular bill, Brother 

Mr. DiFENDERPER. I will be there. 

Mr. Marshall. I am glad Mr. Straus is not here to answer your 
question, 

Mr. DiFENDERFER. I am sure he would agree with me, because I 
know he is a very fair man. 

Mr. Marshall. There is only one other point I would like to take 
up, and that is another question which has recently been raised, 
which arises under the 10th article of this treaty. That is the article 
which Judge Sulzberger referred to this morning, whicli relates to 
inheritances of citizens, subjects of each of the contracting parties, 
with respect to property located in each other's territory. That 
article, after covering quite a good deal of space, concludes as fol- 
lows: '^But this article shall not derogate, in any manner, from the 
force of the laws already puhlished, or vMcJi may hereafter he puh- 
lished, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias: to 'prevent the 
emigration of his subjects." 

Now, that clause, as you will see, by its express terms merely 
refers to this article: 

Article X. 

The citizens and subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have power to 
dispose of their personal goods within the jurisdiction of the other, by testament, 
donation, or otherwise, and their representatives, being citizens or subjects of the 
other party, shall succeed to their said personal goods, whether by testament or ab 
intestato, and may take possession thereof, either by themselves, or by others acting 
for them, and dispose of the same at will, paying to the profit of the respective Govern- 
ments such dues only as the inhabitants of the country wherein the said goods are, 
shall be subject to pay in like cases. And in case of the absence of the representa- 
tive such care shall be taken of the said goods as would be taken of the goods of a 
native of the same country, in like case, until the lawful owner may take measures for 
receiving them; and if a question should arise among several claimants as to which 
of them said goods belong the same shall be decided finally by the laws and judges 
of the land wherein the said goods are. And where, on the death of any person holding 
real estate, within the territories of one of the high contracting parties, such real estate 
would by the laws of the land descend on a citizen or subject of the other party, who 
by reason of alienage may be incapable of holding it, he shall be allowed the time fixed 
by the laws of the country, and in case the laws of the country actually in force may 
not have fixed any such time, he shall then be allowed a reasonable time to sell such 
real estate and to withdraw and export the jDroceeds without molestation and without 
paying to the profit of the respective governments any other dues than those to which 
the inhabitants of the country wherein said real estate is situated shall be subject to 
pay in like cases. But this article shall not derogate in any manner from the force 
of the laws already published, or which may hereafter be published by His Majesty 
the Emperior of all the Russias, to prevent the emigration of his subjects. 

Mr. Cline. That does not give rise to any conflict betwe^on that 
and the first section ? 

!Mr. Marshall. No; I do not think it does in any way. At any 
rate, that question refers to the question of emigration. It does 
not relate to this general right of our citizens when they go to Russia. 

This veiy subject, which has also been recently urged b}^ some of 
the friends of Russia as being an indication that there is something 
in this treaty that Vv-ouldj create some discussion with respect to 
those who have emigrated from Russia, was taken up by our State 
Department a number of years ago, and our position on the subject 
was very clearly defined. 

In the first place, let me call attention to the fact that this treaty 
was a treatv which was negotiated bv Janies Buchanan. Let 



TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 89 

US see wliat James Buchanan's ideas were on the subject of expatria- 
tion and Idndred topics. In 1845, when he was Secretary of State, 
he said : 

The fact of your having become a citizen of the United States has the effect oi 
entitling you to the same protection from this Government that a native citizen would 
receive. (Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, to Mr. Rosset, Nov. 25, 1845, 35 MS., 
Dom. Let., 330.) 

The Government of the United States affords equal protection to all. our citizens, 
whether naturalized or native, and this department makes no distinction between the 
one and the other in granting passports. 

It is right to inform you, however, that difficulties have arisen in cases similar to 
yours. In more than one instance European Governments have attempted to punish 
our naturalized citizens, who had returned to their native country, for military offenses 
committed before their emigration. In every such case the Government has inter- 
posed, I believe, successfully, for their relief; but still they have in the meantime been 
subjected to much inconvenience. Under these circumstances I could not advise 
you to incur the risk of retm-ning to Oldenburg, if the business which calls for your 
presence there can be transacted by any other person. (Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of 
State, to Mr. Huesman, Mar. 10, 1847, 36 MS., Dom. Let., 200.) 

I am reading this from Moore's Digest of International Law, 
Volume III, page 566. 

Again, Mr. Buchanan, in writing to Mr. Bancroft, minister to 
England, under date of December 18, 1848, says: 

Om' obligation to protect both these classes (naturalized and native American 
citizens) is in all respects equal. We can recognize no difference between the one 
and the other, nor can we permit this to be done by any foreign Governm-ent without 
protesting and remonstrating against it in the strongest terms. The subjects of other 
countries — who from choice have abandoned their native lands and, accepting the 
invitation which our laws present, have emigrated to the United States and become 
American citizens — are entitled to the very same rights and privileges as if they had 
been born in the country. To treat them in a different manner would be a violation 
of our plighted faith as well as of our solemn duty. (Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, 
to Mr. Bancroft, minister to England, Dec. 18, 1848, 47 Brit, and For. State Papers, 
1241-1243. For the reply of Lord Palmerston, Aug. 16, 1849, to protests made by 
Mr. Bancroft in accordance with his instructions, see S. Ex. Doc. No. 38, 36th Cong., 
1st sess., p. 167.) 

Now, that is the language of the man who procured this treaty on 
behalf of the United States. Is it conceivable that he should have 
waived the American idea which he has thus forcibly expressed in 
favor of the right of expatriation ? This very question, under section 
10, came up with Russia. The question is thus expressed by Mr. 
Bayard, Secretary of State, to the minister to Russia, Mr. Lathrop, 
on the 18th of February, 1887. He says: 

[Moores Digest, Vol. Ill, pp. 634-637. 

That a citizen of the United States naturalized in Russia could under the treaty 
dispose of his property in the United States is beyond ciuestion, and the privileges 
thus conferred are equally given and equivalent, and should be so construed by each 
of the contracting parties. As citizens of the LTnited States becoming Pvussian sub- 
jects are not to lose their property in the United States, so Russian subjects becoming 
citizens of the United States are not to lose their property in Russia. 

It may be said that this stipulation is qualified by the concluding sentence of the 
article, providing that it is not to derogate "from the force of the laws already pub- 
lished, or which may hereafert be published, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the 
Russias, to prevent the emigration of his subjects." 

It is not necessary to do more than call your attention to the rule that the assertion 
at the close of a treaty, of a general claim to which a prior grant is an exception, is 
an affirmation of such a grant. Of this the reassertion of their general claims to sov- 
ereignty by the German Emperors in their treaties with other sovereigns may be 
taken as an illustration; and another, to the same effect, may be found in our negotia- 
tions with Great Britain, in which she recognized Britons naturalized in the United 



90 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

States to be American citizens, while maintaining the doctrine of perpetual alleg- 
iance. But such reservation does not conflict with the prior grant. When the status 
of citizenship is changed then the right of control ceases. 

His Imperial Majesty may ("prevent") Russians from coming to the United States, 
but when they have come, and have acquired American citizenship, they are entitled 
to the privileges conferred by the article. 

If there could be any doubt that this is the true meaning of the article in question, 
it would be removed by the fact that it is adopted from the fourteenth article of the 
treaty between the United States and Prussia, concluded May 1, 1828. 

That treaty was accepted by Mr. Buchanan and Count Nesselrode, the negotiators, 
as a standard ; and the Russian treaty is to be taken with the construction which the 
Prussian treaty rightfully bears. A copy of this treaty between the United States 
and Prussia is inclo.-ed herewith. 

It was never contended by Prussia, nor subsequently by Germany, that the validity 
of the naturalization of a Prussian or German in the United States was, under this 
article, to be conditioned upon his having emigrated with his sovereign's consent. 
If such an emigrant left his native land in violation of its laws requiring him to per- 
form military service, this might be the subject of prosecution on his return. But 
emigration by itself, when followed by the acquisition of citizenship in the United 
States, was not to deprive such citizen of the unmolested enjoyment of the rights of 
American citizenship as given by international law as well as by the treaty in ques- 
tion. The object of the treaty was to secure to that large class of Prussians who had 
emigrated and had become citizens of the United States the right to dispose of their 
property in their native land, with a mutual and equivalent privilege to emigrants 
from the United States who should become Prussian subjects. The question whether 
the emigration was with the consent of the sovereign was not made, nor could such a 
condition have been accepted without destroying the newly acquired rights of 
citizenship . 

The construction always given to the Prussian treaty by both the parties thereto 
has been that the rights it gives Prussians (or Germans) who become citizens of the 
United States are not dependent on their emigration being with their sovereign's 
consent. German sovereigns have not been disposed to look favorably on those of 
their former subjects who, having emigrated and been naturalized in the United States, 
revisit their native land to dispose of their property. But numerous as have been 
such visits, in no single case has there been an attempt to proceed against such vis- 
itors for breach of allegiance. Count Nesselrode and Mr. Buchanan must have been 
well aware of this; and it is impossible for us to do otherwise than hold that when they 
adopted in 1832 the very words of the treaty of 1828 they adopted them with the 
construction which they not only naturally bear, but which had been assigned to 
them in practice both by Germany and the United States. 

We must under the treaty before us regard Lipszyc's United States citizenship as 
having been acquhed with the assent of Russia, and therefore he is entitled under 
treaty, not merely in this country but in Russia, to the immunities attached to such 
citizenship. As a citizen of the United States he visits Russia, and although he may 
be liable when in Russia for offenses committed by him before his emigration and may 
be expelled from Russia on reasonable grounds he can not be tried for an emigration 
which when followed by naturalization in the United States Russia herself recognizes 
as conferring citizenship of the United States with the right of disposition in Russia 
of property there situated . And when you invite from His Imperial Majesty 's Govern- 
ment the withdrawal of penal action based exclusively on that emigration you ask for 
no act which is at variance with the policy of that Government, but for one that is 
simply in accordance with its treaty stipulations. The withdrawal of such prosecu- 
tion would be regarded as a signal proof of the continuance of the friendship which 
has so long existed between Russia and the United States. 

Such a withdrawal is (in) no way inconsistent with the acknowledged right of Russia 
to prevent emigration; but on the other hand for the United States to acquiesce in 
the deprivation of the rights which belong to their naturalized citizens would be to 
surrender one of their cherished and fundamental institutions. To such smrender 
this department can not assent. And in view of the eminently friendly relations 
between the two Governments and of the facts that the question is not under the treaty 
one of principle with Russia, and that Lipszyc has been already subjected to a long 
imprisonment I am confident His Imperial Majesty's Government will not hesitate 
to act in accordance with the opinions and wishes of the United States. Releasing 
Lipszyc from imprisonment in no way derogates from the rights of Russia as reserved 
in the treaty, and I am sure His Imperial Majesty's Government will be unwilling by 
continuing that imprisonment to press on the United States so unwelcome a question 
as that of the inviolability of the treaty privileges of her citizens. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 91 

[Mr. Bavard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Lothrop, minister to Russia, Feb. 18, 1SS7, Foreij^n Re^fttions, 

1SS7, 9-48.] 

Article 325, Russian Penal Code, chapter 7, reads as follows: 
. ''Whoever, leaving his country, enters a foreign service wathout the permis.sion of 
the Government, or takes the oath of allegiance to a foreign power, for this transgression 
of the duty of a loyal subject and of his oath is liable to the loss of all social rigiits and 
perpetual banishment from the territory of the Empire, or, in case of his unauthorized 
return to Russia, to deportation to and settlement in Siberia. ' ' (For. Rel. , 1887, 945.) 

ARTICLE X OF THE TREATY OF 1832 WITH RUSSIA. 

The citizens and subjects of each of tne nign contracting parties shall have power to 
dispose of their personal goods within the jurisdiction of the other, by testament, 
donation, or otherwise, and their representatives, being citizens or subjects of the other 
pai'ty, .shall succeed to their personal goods, whether by testament or ab intestato, and 
may take possession thereof, either by themselves or by others acting for them and 
dispose of the same at will, paying to the profit of the respectiA'e Governments such 
dues only as the inhabitants of the country v/herein the said goods are shall be subject 
to pay in like cases. And in case of the absence of the representatives, such care shall 
be taken of the said goods as would be taken of the goods of a native of the same country 
in like case, until the lawful owner may take measures for receiving them. And if a 
question should arise among several claimants as to which of them said goods belong, 
the same shall be decided finally by the laws and judges of the land wherein the said 
goods are. And where, on the death of any person holding real estate within the terri- 
tories of one of the high contracting parties, such real estate would by the laws of the 
land descend on a citizen subject of the other party, who by reason of aliena.ge may be 
incapable uf holding it, he shall be allowed the time fixed by the laws of the country; 
and in case the laws of the country actually in force may not have fixed any such time, 
he shall then be allowed a reasonable time to sell such real estate, and to withdraw 
and export the proceeds without molestation, and without paying to the profit of the 
respective Governments any other dues than those to which the inliabitants of the 
country wherein said real estate is situated shall be subject to pay in like cases. But 
this article shall not derogate in any manner from the force of the laws already pub- 
lished, or which may hereafter be published, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the 
Russias to prevent the endgration of his subjects.; 

Article XIV or the Treaty op 1828 avith Prussia. 

The citizens or subjects of each party shall have power to dispose of their personal 
goods within the jurisdiction of the other, by testament, donation, or otherwise; and 
their representatives, being citizens or subjects of the other party, shall succeed to 
their said personal goods, whether by testament or ab intestato , an d may take possession 
thereof, either by themselves or by others acting for them, and dispose of the same at 
their will, paying such dues only as the inhabitants of the country wherein the said 
goods are shall be subject to pay in like cases. And in case of the absence of the repre- 
sentative, such care shall be taken of the said goods as would be taken of the goods of 
a native, in like case, until the lawful owner may take measures for receiving them. 
And if question should arise among several claimants to which of them said goods 
belong, the same shall be decided finally by the laws and judges of the land wherein 
the said goods are. And where, on the death of any person holding real estate within 
the territories of the one party, such real estate would, by the laws of the land, descend 
on a citizen or subject of the other, were he not disqualified by alienage, such citizen 
or subject shall be allowed a reasonable time to sell the same and to withdraw the 
proceeds without molestation and exempt from all duties of detraction, on the part 
of the Government of the respective States. But this article shall not derogate in any 
manner from the force of the laws already published, or hereafter to be published, by 
His Majesty the King of Prussia, to prevent the emigration of his subjects. 

So the construction which was given to that treaty by Prussia has 
always been in conformity with our interpretation of it, and there- 
fore, that provision of the treaty having been borrowed from the 
treaty with Prussia, and having been previously entered into with 
the United States, the same interpretation is to be read into this 
treaty. 



92 TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Therefore, our Government on this subject has spoken most 
emphatically, and this so-called new idea is really an old idea garbed 
in new form. 

So far as the question of expatriation is concerned, that is also a' 
very important one, and that is a matter that is to be taken into 
consideration in the abrogation of this treaty, because the time has 
come when the United States on this subject of the right of expa- 
triation takes the same view with regard to Russia that it has taken 
toward every other civilized country m the world. 

In 1870 England departed from her theory that there was no right 
of expatriation, as a result of this act of Congress, which I read this 
morning, which is now embodied in sections 1999 to 2001 of the 
Revised Statutes, orignially appearing in the act of 1868, and when 
such a country as England is ready to lay down that policy and adopt 
the American policy, it is time for the United States, whose citizen- 
ship is built up from people who come from all countries on the globe, 
to insist more strongly than it has ever insisted upon this right of 
expatriation. 

Mr. Kendall. Your notion is that when we negotiate a new treaty 
with Russia we ought to write into that the principle that we have 
embodied in our statutes ? 

Mr. Marshall. Precisely. The whole point, then, is this: This is 
a matter that relates to the sacred rights of American citizenship. 
This country can not afford to create different classes of citizens. 
When it permits this treaty to stand and permits Russia to violate it, 
as it has for so many years, it is acquiescins; in the Russian attitude 
and it is discriminating against American citizens, and in that respect 
violating its own Constitution. This treaty is antiquated, it is a relic 
of the past. I believe it is the oldest treaty in our whole collection of 
treaties. It is time that we should modernize this treaty, and the 
only way to do that is to consign it to the lumber room by abrogation, 
and clear the way for the adoption of a new, a modern, treaty. If 
Russia refuses to do that, we can stand the consequences. If Russia 
can stand isolated in its evil eminence as the only country in the world 
which has no treaty relations with the United States of America, we 
can afford to face the consequences. [Applause.] 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, for myself and on behalf of the com- 
mittee I want to thank you for coming here and for the eloquent and 
masterly way you have presented this proposition. 

The committee will now hear from Representative Henry M. 
Goldfogle, of New York. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HENSY M. GOLDFOGLE, A SEPKESENTATIVE 
m CONGPvESS FEOM THE STATE OF NEW YOEK. 

Air. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman, the subject has been so well pre- 
sented that really nothing remains to be added, and yet I would be 
untrue to those I represent and untrue to a work that I undertook 
and have been engaged in ever since I came to the American Con- 
gress if I did not now express my decided views with regard to the 
question before us. 

The time has come when this Government must take decided 
action. The only way out of the difficulty is to abrogate the treaty 
of 1832. The American Government has entirely too long per- 



TERMINATION OF THE TKEATY OF 1832. 93 

mitted itself to be played with by Russia. Russia has from time to 
time made promises of better treatment to our citizens, and has in 
various forms of language given America to understand that she 
would at some time in the near future extend uniformity of treat- 
ment to our citizens presenting passports to her. In each instance 
she failed to keep her promises. I have never been deceived about 
Russia's attitude. I have had a large experience with this passport 
proposition. I have been called upon by hundreds of citizens of this 
country, native and naturalized, to have their passports viseed by 
the Russian authorities in this country, and in most instances the 
Russian authorities refused to vise the passport, solely on the ground 
that the holder was a Jew. No other ground assigned; no other 
ground existed. 

I have had interviews with Russian ambassadors here concerning 
the refusal of Russia to honor the passports. Those ambassadors 
placed the refusal to honor the passports on the ground that the 
American citizen was a Jew. Our American Department of State 
unfortunately in 1907, by the issuance of the circular that was 
referred to this morning, gave encouragement to Russia to continue 
her course of discrimination toward our citizens. For the first time 
in the history of our Government, the American Department of State 
undertook to classify our citizens by religious faith or creeds. The 
Department of State undertook to say that passports would not be 
issued to Jews desiring to enter Russia unless they had assurance in 
advance that Russia would consent to their admission. 

I am. glad that that circular, which continued in existence and 
w^hich was sent broadcast throughout the land for a period of nearly 
eight months, was finally withdrawTi; but it was not withdrawn until 
after my colleague, Congressman Harrison, and I had both vigorously 
protested against its issuance, and until a resolution was introduced 
in the House — I introduced it — calling for the production of that 
offensive circular, and until Mr. Harrison, on behalf of himself and 
others of the then Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted, as I also did in 
the House as well as at the department, that that circular was an 
insult to our citizenship. I only mention it to show that our Govern- 
ment has been lax. 

Let me see whether I am right in asserting that this is the hour 
when the treaty should be abrogated by congressional action. 

Russia has been temporizing with us, I say. She has from time to 
time cunningly and craftily evaded the issue. American statesmen 
of the highest order have placed the proper construction upon 
Article I of the treaty, insistmg that the American citizen holding 
the passport is entitled to entrance into Russia as unrestricted and 
as unmolested as America permits the Russian subject to come unre- 
stricted and unmolested into our domain. 

Time and time again the Secretaries of State — some of those who 
have been most eminent in statecraft — have written their opinions 
concerning Russia's duty under the treaty of 1832 and insisted that 
Russia should uniformly recognize the passports without regard to 
the religion or the creed of the holder of it. Russia remained deaf to 
our appeals. Russia closed her ears to our demands. 

The Department of State urged upon our ambassadors abroad to 
intercede with Russia to secure a change of Russia's attitude, and 
have Russia take back her false construction she placed upon the 



94 TEKMI NATION OF THE TKEATY OF 1832. 

treaty. Our remonstrances have been in vain. In 1902 the House 
of Representatives passed my resolution calhng on the Secretary of 
State for information concerning Russia's discrimination between 
our citizens and her refusal to honor the passports. Diplomatic 
intercession followed the passage of that resolution. Again Russia 
remained obstinate. 

In 1904, under the instructions of the State Department, the 
American ambassador at St. Petersburg demanded, in language as 
forcible as a diplomat could possibly put it, that Russia recede from 
her position and honor the passports of our citizens. In that com- 
munication, which conveyed to the Government of Russia the text 
of the resolution of 1904 (a resolution I had introduced) the ambas- 
sador prophesied just what is now taking place. He told the Russian 
Government that this question was acute, that it was liable to be 
brought forward at some time in such a way as to perhaps seriously 
disturb the friendly relations that existed between Russia and the 
United States. He did not mince words. It was a plain, distinct, 
unqualified demand for the uniform recognition of our passports; 
and 5^et Russia kept on her temporizing course. She proclaimed 
that a commission was appointed to revise the passport regulations, 
and then gave America to understand, in some way through means 
of her agents or semiofficial newspapers, that the commission was 
working out a plan under which our passports would receive uniform 
recognition, and that commission went out of existence, or if it did 
not go out of existence the commission has done nothing up to the 
present hour. 

In 1909 the Congress passed, and on the 4th day of March of that 
year the President approved, a joint resolution — it was part of the 
resolution which I introduced — requiring the President to renew his 
negotiations to secure from Russia the removal of the restrictions, or 
some defuiite, clear treaty stipulation under which there should be 
uniformity of treatment accorded to our citizens holding passports. 

At this stage I wish to make special mention of this resolution, 
because that resolution is erroneously stated in the book published 
by the committee. I want to say that the resolution passed without 
preamble by both Houses and was approved by the President March 
4, 1909. 

Under that joint resolution, under that mandate of the Congress of 
the United States, it is said that negotiations were again started and 
Russia was again asked and, it is asserted, was again implored to 
change her course and recognize our passports regardless of the creed 
of the holder. And yet Russia has continued to remain obdurate. 

Mr. Sharp. At that point may I ask this question? 

Mr. GoLDFOGLE. Certainly. 

Mr. Sharp. You seem to be exceedingly well informed on the sub- 
ject, and I want to ask if in your study of the question you have come 
to any particular conclusion as to the real reason why Russia persist- 
ently refuses to recognize these passports — that is, whether it rests 
upon the ground solely of the religious belief of the Jews or does it 
grow out of that coupled with a jealous feeling? There are over 
5,000,000 Jews in Russia, I understand, and they have made great 
progress in commercial affairs, and I should like to get your views 
growing out of your investigations and study of this question. 



TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 95 

Mr. GoLDFOGLE. I should like to answer that. I shall answer the 
first part of your inquiry as I answered the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs in 1902, when a similar inquiry was put. Russia dishonors the 
passport on religious grounds. If the holder of the passport was born 
a Jew and afterwards been converted to another faith, he can, because 
of that conversion, have his passport unqualifiedly viseed. There 
would be no objection to his going into Russia. Russia would not 
then recognize him as a Jew. 

Mr. Legare. Suppose he became a Catholic? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I am coming to that. If, on the other hand, he 
happened to be born a Christian and then became a convert to Juda- 
ism, Russia would refuse to recognize his passport and would dishonor 
it upon the ground that he was a Jew. 

Russia will let a man in if he declares he is not a Jew, or upon it 
appearing that he does not come within the classes of persons she 
excludes, the passport will be viseed. I understand that she has in 
certain cases of priests and missionaries refused to allow those priests 
and missionaries to come within her borders. That is because she 
is opposed to the religions they profess. These priests and mission- 
aries being of a religion that is not in accord with their ideas, Russia 
undertakes to exclude them though they come armed with our 
passports. 

]VIr. Difenderfer. In that connection I would like to ask this 
question: ^Tiether Jew or Gentile, if you hold an American passport 
in any of the provinces of Russia that has not been viseed by the 
Russian Government, is it not a fact that no Russian subject is per- 
mitted to give you a drink of water or a bite to eat or shelter, under 
penalty of prosecution? 

Mr. Goldfogle. You can not get into Russia without a vis6 of 
the passport. 

Mr. Difenderfer. I am speaking particularly now of Siberia, 
where sometimes Americans will get in; for instance, in some of the 
eastern parts of Siberia Irkutsk, sometimes Americans have gotten 
in there, and I understand that they are not permitted under penalty 
of prosecution, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, to give them any 
food or shelter. 

Mr. Kendall. That is in the absence of any vise at all. 

Mr. Goldfogle. That is in the absence of any vis6, because it 
would be a violation of the Russian law to enter Russian territory 
without a vise of the passport. 

Mr. Kendall. That is not the question involved here, is it ? 

Mr. Goldfogle. I do not tliink it is. I was about to say that we 
have reached the parting of the ways. I have told this committee of 
some of the steps that have been taken from time to time to get 
Russia to recede. We have exhausted our diplomatic resources. 
Congress to maintain the dignity of our citizenship and uphold the 
equal rights of our citizens should now say that the treaty must be 
terminated. 

To think that an American citizen should have to submit to an 
inquisition into his rehgious belief; that because he is of some one or 
other of rehgious beliefs or creeds he shall have it said to him that he 
is not to be accorded treatment equally with his fellow citizens is a 
humiliating condition of affairs that America should no longer tol- 

19831—11 7 



96 TEEMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

erate. To that end I also introduced a resolution to abrogate tlie 
treaty. As a self-respecting nation, as a country that guarantees to 
its citizens equaUty of treatment, and issues passports that call on a 
sister nation to extend all friendly aid and protection, we can not 
allow such sister nation to turn her back upon our passport with scorn 
and contempt. Such a condition ought to be stopped now and at 
once. 

The Chairman. We quite agree with Mr. Goldfogie, and I think the 
committee is almost unanimously in favor of the adoption of the 
resolution providing for the abrogation of this treaty. Would you 
like to proceed a little further ? I ask this question because there are 
several other members of the committee who would like to be heard 
briefly. 

Mr. GoLDFOGLB. No; I simply waut to impress upou tliis committee 
my earnest wish that it wUl unanimously report the resolution to 
abrogate the treaty. 

Mr. Kendall. I want to inquire how much longer our session wfll 
continue. 

The Chairman. Just a short time, to allow these members of the 
House to say«a few words and to get some matters into the record. 
First, I wUl call on Hon. Charles B. Smith, of Buffalo, who will 
address the committee. 

STATEMENT OF HOH. CHAELES B. SMITE, A EEPEESEKTATIVE 

IN COHGEESS FEOM TEE STATE OF ^EW YOEK. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: 
Recognizing as I do that the abrogation of the Russian treaty would 
entail complications in our commercial and industrial affairs, I feel, 
nevertheless, that if the Russian Government fails to exhibit an 
immediate and definite inclination to observe the treaty in all its 
provisions, this committee will be justified in reporting to the House 
the Sulzer resolution with a recommendation for its adoption. 

For more than 30 years negotiations have been under way for the 
settlement of this passport question. A mass of correspondence has 
accumulated in the State Department bearing upon the subject. 
But the important fact stands out that the Government of Russia 
continues to reject the passports of Hebrew citizens, Roman Catholic 
priests and bishops, and the missionaries of Protestant denomina- 
tions . 

We are confronted by this problem: Shall we hazard the loss of our 
trade with Russia at the expense of our national honor? That is 
the question to be passed upon by this committee. I sincerely hope 
that the Russian Government will alter its policy and honestly 
observe the solemn agreement entered into with the Government of 
the United States. If, however, it refuses to recognize the binding 
quality of the compact, the treaty will remain a mockery and should 
be abrogated without further controversy or delay. 

I desire to present to the committee certain addresses delivered 
at a mass meeting held in Buft'alo December 3 at the Temple Beth-El, 
in Richmond Avenue. Among those who spoke in favor of the 
abrogation of the treaty were: 

Elliott C. McDougal, president of the Bank of Buffalo and former 
president of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Buffalo. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 97 

The Rev. H. Lester Smith, pastor of the Delaware Avenue Metho- 
dist Church. Dr. Smith spoke for himself and as the representative 
of Bishop Berry of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Mr. John T. Ryan, merchant, and Mr. Michael Nellany, capitalist, 
speaking for themselves and for the Roman Cathohc Bishop of 
Buffalo, the Rt. Rev. Charles H. Colton. 

The Rev. Carl D. Case, pastor of the Delaware Avenue Baptist 
Church. 

Mr. Wesley C. Dudley, district attorney of Erie County. Mr. 
Dudley presided at the meeting. 

Dr. J. H. Landau, S. P., rabbi, Temple Beth-El. 

Charles B. Smith, Member of Congress. 

The addresses follow: 

Dr. J. H. Landau, S. P., rabbi. Temple Beth El, said: 

The passport of the United Sta^tes Government is not recognized by Russia when 
it is presented by an American citizen professing the Jewish faith, by a Roman Cath- 
olic priest, or by a Protestant missionary of various denominations. This discrimi- 
nation has been practiced for 40 years and the agitation over this question has now 
reached a head. A resolution asking for the nullification of this treaty, unless its 
terms be honored, has been moved in the House of Representatives by Congressman 
Paxsons. A similar resolution has been moved in the Senate by Mr. Culberson of 
Texas. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives unani- 
mously favors the resolution of Congressman Parsons. The legislatures of 15 States 
have passed resolutions on this subject. Ten State legislatures have gone on record 
as unqualifiedly in favor of the termination of the treaty of 1832. The last national 
Republican and Democratic conventions pledged themselves to use every effort- to 
remove this slin- upon the dignity and prestige of our country, and most of our great 
newspapers have stoutly advocated and defended this course. It is evidently, there- 
fore, the emphatic opinion of our citizenship without regard to denominational lines 
that the American passport as such should be respected and must be respected when 
presented by any American citizen by every nation upon earth. This is a question 
that is vital to every American, for it concerns the dignity and the prestige of our country. 
It concerns om- pride in our citizenship and the respect in which we axe held among 
the nations. For 30 years we have been expostulating on this matter. Let me read 
some of the correspondence on this subject directed to Russia or our representatives 
in Russia by Presidents and State Secretaries and then you will understand how 
continuously we have been humiliated over this question. 

"Advise the Russian minister of foreign affairs, " said Secretary Blaine, "that we can 
make no newtreatj^ with Russia nor accept any construction of our existing treaty 
which shall discriminate against any class of American citizens on accoimt of their 
religious faith." 

"The Government^ of the Czar," said Secretary Bayard, "is fully aware that we do 
not admit the principle of discrimination against any American citizens because of 
their religious tenets." 

"The action of Russia, " said President Harrison, "is at variance with the character 
of our institutions, the sentiments of our people, the provisions of our statutes, and the 
tendencies of modem international comity." 

But although Presidents and State Secretaries, national and State conventions, have 
declared upon this theme in gentle platitudes or in loud and definite defiance, all our 
efforts have been abortive; despite all diplomatic correspondence, congressional 
resolutions, and platform planks, Russia has scarcely even condescended to answer 
us with a word. She has treated the expostulations and the denunciations of the 
spokesmen of this country with the most absolute contempt. To bring home to you 
forcibly the indignities we have suffered as a Nation over this passport question at the 
hands of Russia, I need but remind you that the American ambassador to Turkey, the 
Hon. Oscar Strauss, when desirous this year of entering Russian territory, was 
refused such admission because he was a Jew. Finally the concession was made to 
him, though scornfully and properly refused, that he, an ambassador of the United 
States of America, would be graciously allowed to tread the "holy" soil of Russia 
"notwithstandiug that he was of the Jewish persuasion." When so scandalous an 
event as thit' can occur, when such a humiliation, insult, and indignity can be imposed' 
upon an American diplomatist of the highest rank, officially representing the power 
and majesty of this Government, none of you will deny that this is a question vital 
to every American and that it does affect the dignity and the prestige of this land. It 



98 TBEMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

is, however, a question of more than prestige and dignity. It is a question which 
involves the honor of our country. The right of every American citizen without 
discrimination to travel and trade in Russian territory is secure and guaranteed under 
the seal of our o^vn Republic in the Russian-American treaty of 1832; yet for 40 years 
our Government has not enforced this right which it has stipulated and assured to 
every American citizen. 

For 40 years we have been knocking at the doors of diplomatic chambers or waiting 
anxiously upon the threshholds of executive mansions ; have besieged the Department 
of State and pleaded in the halls of legislation, for what? Not merely for our natural 
and inalienable rights as citizens of a free country, but for the enforcement of the 
written bond exacted in our behalf by our own Government. Eveq as recently as 
October, 1908, William Howard Taft said: "Of this you can be certain, that the certi- 
ficate contained in an American passport shall have the effect that it ought to have." 
Again, he said: "The American passport must be respected the world over, and every 
effort shall be made to this end." Yet his promises have proved as abortive as those 
stipulated and assured to us under the great seal of our Republic. As Americans we 
demand that our Government fulfill its sworn pledge and perform its plain duty — ^the 
duty it owes to itself and to its citizens of every class and creed — to uphold its honor, 
its dignity, its integrity; and that it accord to those from whom all government derives 
its just powers — the people of the land — that distinction and consideration which are 
inseparable from the proud title of American citizen. 

I desire to say, in conclusion, and most emphatically, that this is not a Jewish but 
an American question. As Secretary Evarts said in 1881: "We ask treaty treatment 
for our grieved citizens not because they are Jews but because they are Americans." 

American Jews in any considerable numbers do not desire to visit Russia, the torture 
chamber of their race; the sweet, delectable land filled with pleasing recollections of 
their women ripped open and the eyes of theii' children gouged out; the land where 
the pitless mobs urge and surge about them, crying, "Thou art the accursed of God 
and man, thou shall be a fugitive and an outcast in thine own land. The hand of all 
men shall be uplifted against thee, and thy hand shall be powerless against them. 
Our laws shall not be thy laws; our rights shall not be thy rights. Thou shalt be 
compelled to live separate and apart in the filthiest quarters of the city and there be 
exposed to insults and the heartless mobs." No, it is not a Jewish question; we do 
not want to return to hell. It is simply a question of principle vital to all of us, Jews 
and Christians alike, in vindication of our citizenship. I ask you to strengthen the 
hands of the good people who are working to compel Russia to respect her treaty 
obligations. If she will not, then let us with quiet dignity treat Russia as we would 
treat an individual unworthy of further association; let us sever ourselves from all 
treaty arrangements with a country that does not honor its pledged word and which 
additionally pom-s contempt upon the significance and prestige of that citizenship 
that is the dearest possession of every American, 

Mr. John T. Ryan said : 

I am here at request of one of Buffalo's citizens — one whom, irrespective of nation- 
ality or religion, all respect and love — the Right Rev. Charles Colton, bishop of 
the Roman Catholic diocese of Buffalo. He desires me to convey his regrets at not 
being present and to say this movement has his indorsement. It is gratifying to see 
so many of Buffalo's prominent citizens enlisted in this cause, the first day of the week 
to note those gentlemen on this platform, representing all religious and political 
beliefs. The previous speakers have been temperate in their remarks, and I would 
not detract from nor add to what has been already said, except to congratulate Dr. 
Landau on this meeting, and to say that the treaty of Russia and the United States, 
as far as American passports are concerned, should be respected by the Russian 
Government. 

We are willing to concede the splendid tribute Russia is entitled to in the past for her 
kindness when our Republic needed assistance and when famine threatened the land. 
It is our desire that this matter between governments be considered carefully, and, 
understanding the machinery of government sometimes moves slow, it is our hope that 
after 30 years a settlement of this matter can be reached. It is to be regretted that 
in a Government like ours it should necessitate on the part of her citizens meetings of 
protest from gatherings such as this. In Russia it is different. Public officers here 
should carry out the mandates of our people or resign. 

It is pleasing to note the presence of Congressman Smith on this platforna and that 
.the courage of his conviction will move him to act in behalf of this question. 

Gentlemen of the committee, now that this matter has been brought to the attention 
of authority, we desire to say our citizens will stand back of this movement and request 
our Representatives to bring the matter as soon as possible for consideration and 
settlement in Congress. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 99 

Mr. Ellicott C. McDougal said: 

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Landau, ladies, and gentlemen: The speakers wlio have preceded 
me have so thoroughly covered the subject that I will call attention to a very few 
points. 

The Russian consuls in this country have made a practice of holding inquisitions 
over Jewish citizens who desired to visit Russia, as authorized by the treaty of 1832. 
That this should be done on our own soil is an affront to the United States of America, 
which, while it should not be resented in bad temper, can not consistently be 
permitted. 

The Russian Government appears to be interested in the steamship line oi)erating 
between New York and Libau. While, under ordinary circumstances, a Jewish citi- 
zen can not get his passport visaed by a Russian consul, the same Jewish citizen, pro- 
viding he purchases a ticket over this steamship line, has no trouble. 

The following are the facts in a particular case: 

Mr. Herman Bernstein, a citizen of New York, desiring to visit Russia, and aware of 
the uniform refusal of the Russian officials to vis6 American passports if the holder 
thereof happens to be a Jew, was advised that he would encounter no difficulty if he 
engaged passage in the Libau steamer, being part of the volunteer fleet belonging to 
the Russian Government. He accordingly purchased his ticket for Libau on the 
steamship St. Petersburg, and on May 13, 1908, went to the Russian consulate to have 
his passport visaed. On entering the consulate he was handed a paper and was asked 
by an official to fill it out. He wrote therein his name; the place of his birth, Scher- 
windt, Germany; his occupation, author and business representative. He was asked 
to state whether he was a citizen, which he answered in the aflirmative. The line in 
which he was asked as to his religion he left blank. A statement he was about to 
make was prevented by the official's declaration that he wanted the blanks filled — 
nothing more. The paper (with the religious blank unfilled) was handed to the official, 
who asked: "Are you going on business or on a pleasure trip?" Bernstein answered, 
that he was going as a business representative and was also interested in the emigration 
question, which he might describe. The official then took the blank and handed it to 
the vice consul, who kept it for about 10 minutes, then walked over to whez-e Bern- 
stein was, told him the fee was |1.20, and visaed the passport. 

Besides the treaty of 1832, the extradition treaty of 1887 is in force between Russia 
and the LTnited States of America. It is intended to provide for the return to either 
country of offenders against the laws of either. While many Russian subjects flee 
to this country for an asylum, it is inconceivable that any American should flee to 
Russia. The advantages of this particular treaty are practically all on the side of 
Russia. Notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding the fact that the rights of Ameri- 
can citizens under the treaty of 1832 are systematized and in the most humiliating 
way disregarded by Russia, the United States has faithfully observed its treaty obli- 
gations, and very properly so. So long as any treaty is in force we should faithfully 
carry out our obligations, even should the other party to the same treaty decline to 
fulfill its obligations. To any careful observer who is familiar with Russian history, 
and who has watched Russia's attitude in this particular case, it is perfectly e-vident 
that she is not sincere; neither does it appear, unless we are to disregard the light of 
experience, that anything can be done by further negotiations. 

On motion of Mr. McDougal the Sulzer resolution was unanimously indorsed. 

The Chairman. I will call on Kepresentative Murray, from Massa- 
chusetts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. MUEEAY, A REPEESENTATIVE 
IN CONGEESS FSOM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am 
not at all surprised that the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Kendall, was 
more or less anxious about the time of adjourning, because, after the 
brief remarks of Mr. Goldfogle that I was permitted to listen to, I 
can readily understand that the committee does not desire general 
comment. 

We all seem to be agreed that this matter has come to such a point 
that the United States can, consistently with its honor, do but one 
thing, and that is insist on the honoring of passports abroad held by 



100 TERMINATION" OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

citizens of the United States; or, on the other hand, the absolute abro- 
gation of the treaty of 1832, which has been so shamefully dishonored 
in this matter of not recognizing the passports issued by this Gov- 
ernment, 

Without taking up but a few minutes of your time, I may perhaps 
be able to express to you something of the feeling that exists in regard 
to this question in puritanical Massachusetts and in the city of Bos- 
ton, in the district I represent. Here in the House of Representa- 
tives the other day in the corridor of the Capitol, the members of the 
Massachusetts delegation had the pleasure of meeting a delegation 
of citizens from Massachusetts. They came here not as Hebrews, 
not as Jews, but as citizens of a great State and city, believing that 
they should have their equality as citizens before the law. Injdis- 
cussing the matter with them we saw very clearly that they have a 
point of view on this matter that is much broader than any race ques- 
tion, that is much broader than an}^ religious belief might be. They 
insisted simply on their rights as American citizens regardless of race, 
regardless or religion. 

As I understand it, this resolution pending before the committee 
is now urged with the idea of having it presented to the House of 
Representatives as soon as possible, and I am glad to say that those 
principles as expressed to me by that delegation seem to be the prin- 
ciples that have prompted the chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Sulzer, in introducmg this resolution, No. 166. 

The gentleman from Buffalo, Mr. Smith, told you of that meeting 
held in Buffalo. There is to be a meeting held in Boston. A meeting 
will be held next Wednesday night in Faneuil Hall, the famous 
temple of Uberty, in that historical building where the fight was 
made for the principles of Hberty which are so dear to us aU. In 
that haU on that night there will be a meeting addressed by Gov. 
Foss; by the mayor of the city, the Hon. Mr. Fitzgerald, formerly a 
member of Congress ; addressed by men of every religious belief, as 
many as can be crowded into the confines of a three or four hour 
meeting. There will be other meetings, but that meeting, under the 
auspices of the city and the State, is a meeting to which I wish to 
caU the attention of this committee. That meeting will take action 
in reference to this resolution. 

The Massachusetts Legislature at its last session — and it meets 
ever}^ year — passed a resolution, during last summer, memorializing 
the Members of Congress and Cabinet officers and the President of 
the United States on this very proposition. By unanimous consent 
I had that resolution introduced in the Congressional Record during 
the summer and made a short talk leading up to the presentation of 
that resolution. It is not just the form of resolution that some of us 
in Massachusetts wanted to have adopted, but at least it is a resolu- 
tion from a great legislature of a great State, which has seen fit to 
take notice of this matter, and it took notice of it solely and entirely 
in response to the public feeling of the State of Massachusetts in the 
matter. 

I only say, then, that we in Boston and in Massachusetts are 
watching with close interest the outcome of this hearing, the outcome 
of this matter being considered by this committee. We sincerely hope 
that there may be not a divided committee report, but a unanimous 
committee report to the Congress of the United States, which will 



TEEMIWATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 101 

reflect the almost unanimous sentiment of the citizens of the country 
that this treaty should be followed or entirely abrogated. [Applause.] 

The Chairman. Are there any other gentlemen who wish to be 
heard ? 

Mr. Murray. Mr. William O'Brien, president of the Boston Cen- 
tral Labor Union, happens to be here to-day, and perhaps he would 
like to address the committee. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to hear from Mr. O'Brien. 

Mr. William O'Brien. I appreciate the courtesy extended me, 
Mr. Chairman, but I content myself with saying perhaps as to Faneuil 
Hall meeting they will get it from me red-handed there. I thank 
you, however, for your courtesy. 

The Chairman. That will conclude the hearing, and we will 
adjourn. 

(Thereupon at 4.40 p. m. the committee adjourned.) 



Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Eepresentatives, 

Tuesday, December 12, 1911. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Wilham Sulzer 
(chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order to hear Repre- 
sentative Harrison, of New York. 

STATEMESTT OF EON. FRAKCIS BI7ST01T HASEISOH", A EEPEE- 
SENTATIYE IE COBTGEESS FEOM THE STATE OF KEW YOEK. 

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
have so often had the honor of addressing myself to this subject in 
the House of Representatives that I shall not try your patience at 
any great length tliis morning. In fact, it would be presumptious 
on my part to attempt to add to the force and eloquence of the 
splendid hearing that was had before your committee on this sub- 
ject yesterday. I wish merely to address myself for a few moments 
to but one phase of tliis matter: My reasons why I believe the time 
has come to abrogate the treaty. 

I call your attention to the fact that for many years in this matter 
we have been the tools of Russian diplomacy. We have entrusted 
the assertion of our national principles to the paths of diplomacy, 
and it has been in vain. Many resolutions have passed the House of 
Representatives on tliis subject, merely to find their final resting 
place in the scrap basket of the Russian prime minister. Many 
representations have been made directly to the Russian Government 
by our diplomatic agents over there and have served as food for the 
inextinguishable laughter of the Russian Grand Dukes. The time 
has passed for talk and the time for action has come. 

This is not a partisan movement; it is a movement in which the 
entire American people are taking part. I speak of that because in 
my judgment the reason why the strong representations made by our 
Congress and by our admmistration to Russia have received so little 
attention in the past is because the Russians do not beheve we are in 
earnest. They have frequently said so in private conversation with 
public men in this country who a,re interested in this matter 



102 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

The Chairman. I quite agree with you about that, Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. Harrison. And their newspapers frequently pubhsh state 
ments to that effect. 

Mr. Flood. They think it is a pohtical move on somebody's part. 

Mr. Harrison. They think it is a pohtical move on somebody's 
part, and that is a subject which I propose, if I am granted the time, 
to discuss in the House of Representatives; but I could not burden 
your committee with it at this time. But if, in the chain of com- 
munication between the American people and the court of Russia, 
there has been any insincerity or faltering on this subject, if any offi- 
cial of the State Department has handed to a Russian ambassador a 
resolution of our Congress with his tongue in his cheek, or if an Amer- 
ican diplomatic representative in St. Petersburg has presented to the 
minister of foreign affairs the resolutions we have passed on the sub- 
ject with an ill-concealed sneer, you may be sure that the Russian 
Government has been fully aware of it. 

It is difficult for gentlemen over here thoroughly to understand 
and appreciate what or whom it is who governs Russia, and to what 
or to whom we must, in the final resort, take our appeal in this matter. 
In the first place, in Russia there is no such thing as public opinion. 
There are no such things as newspapers, in the sense in which we under- 
stand them. In Russia there are no public meetings, there are no 
crowds, there is no public; there is no political entity to which we 
may appeal, or before which we may assert our rights, other than a 
small group of bureaucrats, who, for the past generation, have been 
presided over by the procurator of the Holy Synod. It has been 
said by the Russians recently that if we would be patient a little 
longer, and if we would forget we had already waited 30 years to have 
respectful attention paid to our representations, the matter would 
be settled by the Russian Duma, or parliament. But when we recall 
that the first Duma which gathered in that unhappy country a few 
years ago lost nearly two-thirds of its membership from arrest and 
imprisonment, because they had dared to express their opinions upon 
a public question, we may well hesitate to entrust to that legislature 
an assertion of the rights of Americans, when they are unable to 
assert their own. 

The alternative proposition by Russia is that this matter is being 
investigated by a Russian commission. To those who have been in 
public fife in this country it will occur immediately that this is the 
most famihar and acceptable way of asphyxiating any reform; and 
that is the way Russia is alleged to have used her commissions. 
But when recently pressed for a statement as to what commission 
it was that was to make re^dsion of the passport law, Russia rephed 
that it was the Durnovo Commission. An investigation of that state- 
ment disclosed the fact that this Durnovo Commission had ceased to 
exist many years before that when it v/as in existence, it never con- 
sidered, or never was formed to consider, the American passport 
question, and that Durnovo, its chairman, was one of the most cele- 
brated Jew baiters of Russia. 

Mr. GooDV/iN. I suppose that they mean that they will consider 
the matter de novo. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Harrison. I only speak of these things to show that the day 
for diplomacy in this matter has come to an end. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 103 

How do you suppose Kussia finds out whether our public men are 
in earnest or not ? I will venture to say that there was not a fleeting 
expression on the face of any member of the committee here yesterday 
which, if it is deemed worth while, will not be known to Russia. 
When I was in St. Petersburg with my father some years ago the 
American minister there requested my- father to carry with him out 
of Russia certain confidential dispatches, to be mailed by him in 
London to the State Department here, stating to my father that the 
reason why he did so was because he found that the Russian Govern- 
ment generally opened his official dispatches in the post ofiice, both 
going and coming. They have the most complete system of under- 
ground information known to the modern world. And yet, with all 
that, they do not share that information with the Russian people, 
nor, curious as it may seem to some of you, do they even impart it 
all to the Emperor. The Emperor knows very little, indeed, I pre- 
sume to say, about this question, or about any questions of foreign 
policy. All American travelers who have been in Russia have seen 
the home newspapers, if they have been allowed at all to go into that 
country, stamped out, whole columns of them, with black ink, and 
upon inquiry they have been informed that those columns related to 
affairs which it was considered by the official censor or blotter-out 
inadvisable to permit people in Russia to discover or discuss. 

When I was there I met a gentleman who was a chamberlain at the 
Court of Russia, who informed me that his official occupation was 
stamping out the Emperor's newspapers; that the Emperor was not 
allowed by the Russian bureaucracy to read those columns of the 
foreign newspapers which contained foreign affairs. I suppose their 
reason was — although he did not state this — that in the past more 
than one Russian Emperor has been anxious to place his country in 
the forefront of progress and civilization. 

I have presumed to take up your time mth these statements 
because I want to call to your attention what I believe will be the 
result of the abrogation of this treaty. I have said that in this matter 
we are not dealing with the Russian people. I believe they know 
nothing about it. I doubt if we are even dealing with the Russian 
Emperor. I doubt if he knows anything about it. We are dealing 
with a small clique of bureaucrats, who are refusing to listen to our 
representations on this subject for their own selfish purposes, and the 
effect upon them of the abrogation of this treaty will be twofold. 
First, it may induce other countries to join us in the assertion of this 
principle; second, our action, mth a knowledge of our reasons, may 
penetrate through this small group of selfish and unpatriotic Russians 
to the bulk of the Russian people. If it does that, I am confident we 
will secure a proper adjustment of this whole question. It is a matter 
upon which their own progress and civilization depend, and, believing 
as I do that the Russian people, if they are informed on this subject, 
will be unwilling to be placed in Coventry by all the other nations of 
the world, I feel confident we will meet with a prompt response from 
them by taking a decided stand upon this treaty. 

Surely it is not too much to ask of the American Congress that they 
should take a step forward in the assertion of human rights, when they 
have taken such a step so many times in the past in the assertion of 
property rights. We did not hesitate to denounce our treaties with 
France, with Belgium, with Chile, with other countries, in the asser- 



104 TERMINATIOlsr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

tion of property rights, and we should not hesitate for one moment to 
assert in behalf of the defense of one of the best accepted of American 
principles our unwillingness any longer to tolerate the existence of 
our treaty with Russia. [Applause.] 

The Chairman. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. DiFENDEEFER. Mr. Chairman, in confirmation, partly, of what 
Mr. Harrison has said, I want to refer to an incident with which I 
hanpened to be associated. During the siege in China I happened on 
one occasion to go with the consul, Mr. Eagsdale, to the consulate. 
The consulate had been locked, the gates of the walls around it had 
been locked, and it was in the evening. Mr. Ragsdale and I started. 
I went with him as a sort of a bodyguard. We went to the consulate, 
and when we reached the consulate gate we were challenged by Rus- 
sian soldiers and not permitted to enter. The Russian soldiers had 
taken up the grounds of a very prominent Russian which adjoins the 
consulate. The minute we got to the gate we were challenged by a 
noise something hke this [indicating], and the points of the bayonets 
were put at the pits of our stomachs and we were forbidden to go into 
the consulate. 

Mr. Kendall. What consulate was it ? 

Mr. Difenderfer. The American consulate. 

Mr. Goodwin. That was during the Boxer uprising ? 

Mr. Difenderfer. Yes, sir. They would not permit the consul 
himself to go into his own house. They had finally to bring some 
authority to bear even to permit us to go in. This matter was taken 
up among the people at the time in Tientsin, and the remark was 
made generally that, had it been any other country than America, they 
would never have stood for it, that an investigation would have been 
made. We never made any investigation at all. 

(Thereupon, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned.) 



APPENDIX I. 

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING PASSPORT QUESTION. 



In October, 1864, Bernard Bernstein, who was born in Russian Poland in 1823, and 
who emigrated to the United States in 1845 or 1846, owing military duty to Russia, 
was arrested in that country and imprisoned on a charge of having failed to perform 
military service. On the sixth day after his aiTest he wrote to the Department of 
State, and the department, November 29, 1864, instructed the legation at St. Peters- 
burg to take steps to secure his release. He was altogether discharged in March, 1865, 
in consideration, it was believed, of his American citizenship, which he acquired by 
naturalization in 1856. His actual imprisonment lasted only several days. The 
Department of State afterwards declined to make a claim for indemnity. 

* -x- * * * * * 

Bernstein's case formed the subject of a report to Congress. (Message of President 
Grant, Feb. 8, 1873, H. Ex. Doc. 197, 42d Cong., 3d sess.) 

(Moore's Digest, Vol. Ill, § 453, p. 622.) 



Mr. Fish, replying to g,n inquiry concerning the treaty relations between the United 
States and Russia and the treatment of naturalized citizens of the one country on 
their return to the other, the latter being their country of origin, said: "We have no 
special treaty with Russia on this subject, nor is this department informed as to her 
laws or practice in such cases. The friendly disposition manifested by Russia toward 
this Government would lead it to entertain the hope that its citizens, who conduct 
themselves properly in that country, would be allowed to travel therein without 
molestation." (1869.) 

(Moore's Digest, Vol. Ill, § 453, p. 623.) 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Clay. 

(No. 187.) Department op State, 

JVashington, January 31, 1866. 
Sir: I transmit to you a copy of a communication of the 29th instant, from George 
W. Cook, of New York City, relative to the case of Benjamin Goldberg, a naturalized 
citizen of the United States, who, it is stated, has been arrested and held to military 
service in Poland while on a recent visit there. You are instructed to inquire into the 
circumstances attending the arrest, and, if it be deemed advisable, to do what you 
properly can to obtain the release of Mr. Goldberg. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, William H. Seward. 

(Diplomatic Correspondence, 1866, pt. 1, p. 391.) 



Mr. Cook to Mr. Seward. 

Ill Nassau Street, New York, January 29, 1866. 

Sir: I beg leave to call the attention of the Department of State to the case of 
Benjamin Goldberg, a naturalized citizen of the United States, who has been arrested 
while on a visit in Poland, and held for military service. 

Mr. Goldberg lef^ New York in the month of September last for the purpose of 
receiving an inhentance left him at Warsaw, or some other place, in Poland. He 
carried with him a passport received from the State Department at Washington, and 
the passport is numbered 21903, dated August 21, 1865. 

105 



106 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

I inclose a copy of Mr. Goldberg's letter apprising me of his arrest, also the original 
envelope containing the same, the postmarks on which may lead to where Mr. Goldberg 
is held. 

I would respectfully request that the American minister or consul at Warsaw, or 
other place, may be instructed to inquire into the case of Mr. Goldberg and procure his 
release. 

Yours, very respectfully, George W. Cook. 

Hon. William Seward, 

Secretary of State. 

(Diplomatic Correspondence, 1866, pt. 1, p. 392.) 



Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 29, 1879. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 52, calling 
my attention to the case of Mr. H. Rosenstraus, a naturalized citizen of the United 
States, of Jewish persuasion, and inquiring whether any preference is extended to 
British Jews or those of other nationalities in the matter of holding real estate in 
Russia; and if so, under what circumstances and by what legal instrument such 
exceptional privileges are conferred. 

And, first, I am requested by Mr. Edwards to state that he did not inform Mr. 
Rosenstraus that British Jews are allowed to hold real estate in Russia, as alleged 
by Mr. Wise in his letter to the department. As consul, Mr. Edwards decHned to 
give any opinion upon the subject, but while temporarily representing the minister 
of the United States he thought it right to answer Mr. Roseiistraus to the effect that, 
in his opinion, "the treaty in force between the United States and Russia conceded 
to him no rights in addition to those held and enjoyed by Russian subjects of like 
faith." I have the honor to inclose a copy of Mr. Edwards's letter. 

In July last, at the request of Mr. Rosenstraus's brother and partner, Mr. Stoughton 
inquired of Mr. de Giers if alien Jews are allowed to hold real estate in Russia. Mr. 
de Giers was unable to answer, but promised to inquire in the proper quarter and 
inform Mr. Stoughton. No reply has yet been received. Since my return I have 
reminded Mr. de Giers of Mr. Stoughton's inquiry; but I should not be surprised if 
I received no answer. The foreign office in several countries of western Europe 
refuses to answer questions of law. It points you to the published statutes of the 
country, and if these are of difficult interpretation to the foreigner he must have 
recourse to his own counsel. Most of the embassies and legations here have counsel 
attached to them. As this legation does not enjoy this advantage, I am compelled 
to give you the result of my own examination of such books as are accessible to me 
and of my inquires in well-informed quarters. 

The laws of Russia bristle with so many exceptions that the exceptions frequently 
appear to be the rule. 

The strong personal element which pervades the administration of the Govern- 
ment frequently enables many individuals of a class to do what is forbidden to the 
class. Then the ancient laws of the States which have from time to time been 
annexed to the Russian Crown and the dangers apprehended from local political 
disturbances; or, on the other hand, the loyal and "well-intentioned" character of 
the community, and even the social status of the individual, have a most marked 
effect in modifying the application of the law. 

In the old Polish provinces, Roman Catholics, native as well as foreign, are not 
allowed to hold land. In the Grand Duchy of Finland no alien is allowed to pur- 
chase real estate, not even a Russian, unless of noble birth; and in the Baltic Provinces 
all persons, foreign or native, who are not of the noble or ' ' citizen " class are subject 
to many annoying restrictions in the purchase and tenure of land ; while in Russian 
Poland the code enacts that a foreigner shall enjoy in Poland only those civil rights 
which are accorded to a Pole in the foreigner's country. 

This system of exceptions is applied to the Jews. Under article 1516, Volume IX, 
of the code, foreign Jews are not allowed to settle in Russia or become Russian citizens. 
But as under several treaties, and especially that with Great Britain, their right so to 
settle is clear, they are in point of fact permitted to reside here. They do so, however, 
under restriction, one of which is that they must receive the permission of the three 
ministers — of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs — and another that they 
must belong to the first commercial guild, and, of comse, pay accordingly. (Art. 1523, 
Vol. IX, of code.) 



TERMIlSrATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 107 

So, as regards real estate, native Jews are not permitted by law to hold land in 
Russia; yet it is notorious that many do hold it. When they reside far from the 
Polish frontier, when they live in a peaceful and loyal part of the Empire, when their 
social position and wealth are a guaranty that they will earnestly support the Govern- 
ment, the authorities close their eyes and do not see the most transparent subterfuges. 

Foreign Jews stand upon a better and more legalized footing. Under article 1523 
it is permitted to "alien Jews, distinguished by their position in society or their 
extensive business transactions, to establish banking houses and manufactories, and 
to hold real property; " and in this respect all alien Jews, American and British, stand 
upon precisely the same footing. 

This position of British Jews has, as far as I can learn, given rise to no reclamation 
on the part of Great Britain. They are allowed under the treaty to settle in Russia, 
and they are granted privileges not accorded by law to native Jews. 

In Mr. Rosenstraus's case the reasons why the authorities in Kharkoff do not find 
in him the qualities necessary to bring him within article 1523 of the code are easily 
guessed. 

Since 1865 his brother and partner have been in a chronic state of difficulty with 
these authorities. In that year he wrote to Mr. Clay that he would not be permitted 
to continue his business unless he produced his certificate of christening. Mr. play 
iatervened, and, in due time was answered by the foreign office that, as an American, 
Mr. Rosenstraus enjoyed "exceptional tolerance" but that he had abused the protec- 
tion extended to him by the legation. Again, in 1873, Mr. Rosenstraus complained; 
the principal cause of complaint on this occasion being that he was compelled to 
belong to the first guild and pay 600 rubles, instead of to the second guild, and pay 
150 rubles. Mr. Jewell intervened, expressly disclaiming, however, a demand for 
any privileges not extended to native Jews, and in due time was answered that the 
laws as regards the different guilds had been amended (par. 5 of the annex of art. 
128 of the Code of Commerce) and that Mr. Rosenstraus was clearly in the first 
guild. Mr. Westerman added that this was a matter within the exclusive compe- 
tency of the municipal authorities, and that the central government never inter- 
fered with them. 

I have the honor to call your attention to the fact that Mr. H. Rosenstraus is a 
naturalized citizen of the United States; that he has now been absent from the country 
for over three years; that he manifests no intention of returning, but on the contrary 
speaks as if he was permanently settled at Kharkoff, and is desirous of buying real 
estate there; that apparently he pays no taxes, performs no militia or jury duty; in 
short makes no return whatever for the protection he claims from the United States. 

WiCKHAM Hoffman. 

(Foreign Relations, 1879, p. 921.) 



Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster. 

Department of State, 

Washington, April 14, 1880. 

Sir: I have received a letter from Messrs. S. Wolf and A. S. Solomons, of this city, 
representing the "Union of American Hebrew Congregations," in which they refer to 
newspaper statements indicating that the Jews in Russia have recently been subjected 
by the Government there to extraordinary hardships, and expressing a desire that the 
minister of the United States to St. Petersburg may be instructed to "make such rep- 
resentations to the Czar's Government, in the interests of religious freedom and suf- 
fering humanity, as will best accord with the most emphasized liberal sentiments of 
the American people." The writers of the letter observe at the same time that they 
are well "aware of the impropriety of one nation interfering with the internal affairs 
of another m matters of a purely local character." 

You are sufficiently well informed of the liberal sentiments of this Government to 
perceive that whenever any pertinent occasion may arise its attitude must always be 
in harmony with the principle of extending all rights and privileges without distinc- 
tion on account of creed, and can not fail, therefore, to conduct any affair of business 
or negotiation with the Government to which you are accredited, which may involve 
any expression of the views of this Government on this subject, in a manner which will 
subserve the interests of religious freedom. It would of course be inadmissible for the 
Government of the United States to approach the Government of Russia in criticism 
of the laws and regulations, except so far as such laws and regulations may injuriously 
affect citizens of this country, in violation of natural rights, treaty obligations, or the 



108 TERMIWATIOSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

provisions of international law, but it is desired that the attitude of the minister, as 
regards questions of diplomatic controversy, which involve an expression of view on 
this subject, may be wholly consistent with the theory on which this Government was 
founded. 

I am, sir, William M. Evarts. 

(Foreign Eelations, 1880, p. 873.) 



Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 7, 1880. 

Sir: I have the honor to report to you the case of Henry Pinkos, an Israelite and 
citizen of the United States. 

About a fortnight ago this man was brought to me by Mr. Edwards, who informed 
me that Pinkos had been ordered to leave St. Petersburg. The latter told me that 
all foreign Jews had been ordered to leave this city at once. 

I wrote immediately to Mr. de Giers, and Mr. Edwards saw Gen. Zouroff, the prefect 
of the city, and obtained from him a delay of three days. 

As I did not hear from Mr. de Giers, I went to see him and suggested that this man 
might at least have a delay of some weeks in order that he might dispose of his prop- 
erty or embark with it for England on the opening of navigation. When the three 
days had expired I applied o Gen. Zouroff for a further extension and obtained a week. 
As no vessel had in the meantime arrived, I applied at its expiration for still further 
delay and obtained three days more, with an intimation that Gen. Zouroff regretted 
that it would be impossible for him to grant any further delay. 

The extended time expires to-day. English steamers have in the meantime arrived 
and Pinkos will be able to embark at once with his family and property. 

I have heard nothing whatever from Mr. de Giers, from which I infer that he is 
unable to interfere with Gen. Melikoff's order. Upon calling at the foreign office 
yesterday, I was unable to see him on account of the Easter holiday. 

I understand that since it has appeared, many Jews have been engaged in plots 
against the Emperor, and that foreign Jews have been ordered to leave not only 
St. Petersburg but Moscow and some other large towns where they have hitherto 
been permitted to reside. 

I have, etc., Wickham Hoffman. 

(Foreign Eelations, 1880, p. 873.) 



Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 17, 1880. 

Sir: Referring to my dispatch No. 205, in relation to the case of Henry Pinkos, 
an American citizen and an Israelite, I have the honor to inform you that I am at 
length in receipt of a note from Mr. de Giers, in answer to mine of the 20th of April. 

The Russian Government grants to Mr. Pinkos a delay of three months in order to 
wind up his business. 

On sending to notify him, I found that he was still at St. Petersburg, the police 
superintendent of his district having permitted him to remain from day to day since 
the expiration of the time allowed him by Gen. Zouroff to await the answer of the 
Russian Government. 

I have, etc., Wickham Hoffman. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 874.) 



Mr, Evarts to Mr. Foster. 

Department of State, 
Washington, June 28, 1880. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Hoffman's No. 205 and 208 
in relation to the expulsion of foreign Jews from certain large towns and_ cities of 
Russia and the expulsion of Mr. Henry Pinkos, a Jew and an American citizen from 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 109 

St. Petersburg, in particular. It appears from the latter dispatch that Mr. Pinkos has 
been allowed to remain three months. Mr. Hoffman does not specifically state that 
Mr. Pinkos or the other Jews referred to have been ordered to leave Russia as well as 
St. Petersburg, but that is the implication of the dispatches. 

In reply I have to observe that the presence of this fact that an American Jew has 
been ordered to leave Russia on no other ground than that he is the professor of a par- 
ticular creed or the holder of certain religious views, it becomes the duty of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, which impartially seeks to protect all of its citizens, 
of whatever origin or faith, solemnly, but with all respect to the Government of His 
Majesty, to protest. As this order of expulsion applies to all foreign Jews in certain 
towns or localities, at least of Russia, it is of course apparent that the same is not 
directed especially against this Government, of which Mr. Pinkos is a representative, 
and indeed the long standing amity v/hich has united the interests of Russia with 
those of this Government would of itself forbid a remote supposition that such might 
be the case. Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, the United States could not 
fail to look upon the expulsion of one of its citizens from Russia on the simple ground 
of his religious ideas or convictions, except as a grievance akin to that which Russia 
would doubtless find in the expulsion of one of her own citizens from the United 
States on the ground of his attachment to the race of his fathers. 

It is intimated in Mr. Hoffman's No. 205 that the reason of this order may be found 
in the supposed implication of the Jews in the plots formed against the life of the 
Emperor, and in so far as this may be true, the Government of Russia has the entire 
sympathy of the United States in all just preventive efforts, and if there exists good 
evidence that Mr. Pinkos has been connected with any of these attempts, the Govern- 
ment of the United States can not object to his expulsion on that ground. But such a 
charge does not appear to have been made against Mr. Pinkos, and it is confidently 
submitted to His Majesty's Government whether in the event Mr. Pinkos should be 
finally expelled from Russia, or be otherwise interrupted in his peaceful occupations, 
on the sole ground that his religious views are of one kind rather than another, he 
would not be justly entitled to make reclamation for the damage and loss to which 
he might thereby be subjected. 

You will present these views at the foreign office in the courteous spirit in which 
they are made. 

Wm. M. Evarts. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 875.) 



Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 15, 1880. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch. No. 14, addressed 
to Mr. Foster, in which you instruct him to make certain representations to the Impe- 
rial Government in relation to the expulsion of American Jews from Russii, and 
especially in reference to the case of Mr. Henry Pinkos. 

******* 

In relation to this particular case, I have unofficial reasons for believing that at the 
expiration of the three months granted him, if he wishes to remam, he will not be 
disturbed. He tells me, however, that he has had enough of Russia and wishes to 
return to the United States. 

I may be permitted to add that I did not intend to imply in my No. 205 that Mr. Pin- 
kos had been ordered to leave Russia. I stated that he had been ordered to leave 
St. Petersburg." I carefully examined and had a translation made of the police 
indorsement upon his passport, and called his attention to the fact that he was to leave 
St. Petersburg only. He answered, however, and justly, that with a business estab- 
lished here, to be ordered to leave St. Petersburg was equivalent, in his case, to being 
ordered to leave Russia. 

I do not understand that foreign Jews have been ordered to leave Russia. As I had 
the honor to state in my No. 205, "foreign Jews have been ordered to leave not only 
St. Petersburg, but Moscow and some other large towns, where they have hitherto 
been permitted to reside." These cities, it will be recollected, are under martial law, 
as I had the honor to report in my No. 94, of April 23, 1879, and the harsh measures of 
the expulsion of foreign Jews from them must be looked upon, I fear, as within the 
legal power and authority of the military governor. 



110 TERMINATIOlSr OP THE TEE AT Y OF 1832. 

With these explanations before you, should you still think that representations- 
should be promptly made to the Imperial Government in regard to the case of Mr. Pin- 
kos, it will give me pleasure to make them in the language of your dispatch. 
I am, etc., 

WiCKHAM Hoffman. 
(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 876.) 



Mr. Hoffvian to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 21, 1880. 

Sir: Referring to my correspondence with the department upon the case of Henry- 
Pinkos, an American Jew, ordered out of St. Petersburg, and especially to my No 
208 upon this subject, I have the honor to inform you that the three months' delay 
granted to Pinkos having expired, he sold his little property at a sacrifice and prepared 
to leave Russia. 

Having paid his passage and sent his baggage on board a vessel at Cronstadt, he was 
preparing to embark with his family when he was asked by the police for his passport. 
He showed them the indorsement ordering him to leave St. Petersburg, which he sup- 
posed to be sufficient. They told him that it was not and sent him and his family 
back to St. Petersburg to procure the necessary permission. The ship sailed without 
him, carrying off his baggage. The captain refused to return the passage money, as he 
had asked him if his passport was in order, and he found himself with his family peimi- 
less in St. Petersburg, and was indebted to private charity for the means to leave the 
country. This he was to have done yesterday. 

I was upon the point of addressing M. de Giers a note, remonstrating against the 

harsh treatment of Pinkos, but have concluded to await your reply to my No. 18, in 

reference to this case, and to the general subject of the expulsion of foreign Jews from 

St. Petersburg and other large cities. 

******* 

Mr. Pinkos's family complained bitterly of the unnecessary harshness with which 
they have been treated by the police at Cronstadt.. 

I am, sir, etc., Wickham Hoffman. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 878.) 



Mr. Evarts to Mr. Hoffman. 

Department op State, 
Washington, August 10, 1880. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yoiu- dispatches of the 15th 
and 21st ultimos, in the case of Henry Pinkos, a citizen of the United States, of the 
Jewish faith, who has been ordered to quit St. Petersburg. 

In view of the cruel situation in which Mr. Pinkos was placed by the action of the 
police at Cronstadt, I telegraphed you to-day as follows: 

"Dispatch 20 received. Make every proper representation to the Government in 
Pinkos's case that will relieve his situation." 

I am sure that His Majesty's Government will require no further reasons for the 
extension to Mr. Pinkos of such facilities as may be possible, the loss of property 
incident to the action taken by the authorities in his case, than a plain statement of 

I am, sir, etc., Wm. M. Evarts. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 879.) 



Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 11, 1880. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your cipher telegram of yester- 
day, which I deciphered as follows: 

"Dispatch 20 received. Make every proper representation to the Government in 
Pinkos's case that may relieve his situation." 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 111 

Mr. Pinkos left Russia with his family on the 20th of July. I did not see him per- 
sonally, but I inferred from what his wife said that there had been no further police 
interference with him, but that he had made up his mind that Russia was no place 
for one of his creed, and that he proposed to establish himself in Liverpool, or return 
to the United States. 

As the object of yom- telegraphic dispatch appears to have been to do everything in 
your power to relieve Pinkos's situation, and as he has left the country, there appears 
to be no necessity for my communicating with the Russian Government. I shall call 
Mr. Foster's attention, however, to your telegram immediately upon his return. 
This may be expected on or shortly before September 1. 

I am, etc., Wickham Hoffman. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 879.) 



Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster. 

Department of State, 
Washington, September 4, 1880. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Hoffman's No. 23 of the 
11th ultimo in the Pinkos case. 

Notwithstanding the tenor of your No. 9 and of your note to the department of 
July 24 last, as to the inexpediency of presently appealing to the Government of the 
Czar in the sense of the instruction of June 28 last, touching the expulsion of citi- 
zens of the United States from Russia (or certain cities thereof) by reason of their 
religious con^dctions, the statements of Mr. Hoffman's No. 23 of August 11 last are 
such that the Government of the United States would seem indifferent to the cause 
of its citizens in Russia did it neglect to make immediate remonstrance as set forth 
in the said instructions of June 28. Mr. Hoffman's inference from the facts con- 
nected with Mr. Pinkos's departure from Russia is that Mr. Pinkos made up his mind 
that Russia "was no place for one of his creed." 

If the meaning of this is that a citizen of the United States has been broken up in 
his business at St. Petersburg simply for the reason that he is a Jew rather than a 
believer in any other creed, then it is certainly time for this Government to express 
itself as set forth in the instruction above mentioned. It should be made clear to 
the Government of Russia that in view of this Government the religion professed by 
one of its citizens has no relation whatever to that citizen's right to the protection of 
the United States, and that in the eye of this Government an injury officially dealt 
to Mr. Pinkos at St. Petersburg on the sole ground that he is a Jew presents the same 
aspect that an injury officially done to a citizen of Russia in New York for the reason 
that he attends any particular church there would be to the view of His Majesty's 
Government. 

It is evident that the losses incurred by the abandonment of his business in St. Peters 
burg will afford Mr. Pinkos ground for reclamation, if no other cause can be shown 
for the official breaking up of his said business than the religious views he entertained. 

The direct application to have Mr. Pinkos indemnified, however, may be deferred 
until he shall make it appear what those losses were. 

Wm. M. Evarts. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 880.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 16, 1880. 

Sir: Your several dispatches relating to the expulsion from St. Petersburg of Henry 
Pinkos, a citizen of the United States, of Jewish faith, had already been acknowledged 
by Mr. Hoffman before my arrival. Mr. Hoffman thought proper to defer action upon 
your No. 14 of June 28 last until further instructed after receipt of his dispatch No. 
12 of the 20th of July or till my return. 

Ha^dng examined your instructions and being informed of the facts of the case, I 
have felt no hesitation in communicating to Baron Jomini, the acting minister of 
foreign affairs, the protest of our Government against the expulsion of American 
citizens from Russia for no other reason than their adherence to the Jewish religion. 
It will be seen that in my note upon the subject, of which I inclose a copy herewith, 

19831—11 8 



112 TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

I have adopted the language of your dispatch and have only enlarged upon that dis- 
patch in referring to the experience had in the United States in admitting Jews to 
the full and unrestricted rights of citizens, which I deemed warranted by the tenor 
of your dispatch No. 2 of April 14 last. 

I am, sir, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 880.) 



Mr. Foster to Baron Jomini. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 2/14, 1880. 

Excellency: The expulsion from this city of Henry Pinkos, a citizen of the United 
States, with the aggravating circumstances attending it, having been brought to the 
attention of my Government, I have been instructed by the Secretary of State to 
make known to yom- excellency the views of my Government thereon and to protest 
against the treatment which the said citizen has received. 

Although the case has been heretofore brought to the attention of your excellency's 
department, it may be well to recall the facts attending it. In the month of April 
last, before I assumed charge of this legation, Henry Pinkos applied to the consul 
general of the United States in this capital for relief from an order which he had received 
from the police authorities to leave St. Petersburg, the only reason for his expulsion, 
as he understood it, being that he was a Jew. He was provided with a passport, fuUy 
authenticating his American citizenship. The consul general upon inquiry was 
informed that he was an industrious and quiet tradesman, and with a wife and one 
child had been residing in this city for some months. In the frequent interviews of 
the consul general with the police authorities no charges or intimations were ever 
made that Pinkos was other than a peaceful and law-abiding resident. 

The only relief which the consul general and the charge d'affaires of this legation 
could obtain from the police authorities was a suspension for a few days of the order of 
expulsion, until Mr. Hoffman was able to communicate with the foreign office and 
obtained, through Mr. de Giers, permission for Mr. Pinkos to remain for three months 
to enable him to close up his business. At the expiration of this period Pinkos, 
having sold his little property at a sacrifice, proceeded to obey the order, placed his 
baggage on board a vessel at Cronstadt, and when preparing to embark with his family 
he was asked by the police for his passport; whereupon he presented his American 
passport with which he had entered the country, with the police indorsement upon 
it ordering him to leave St. Petersburg, which he had supposed was sufficient. The 
police informed him that this was not sufficient and compelled him and his family to 
return to St. Petersburg. The captain of the vessel refused to refund him the passage 
money paid and sailed without him, carrying off his luggage. Having obtained from 
the authorities the permission required by the police, finding himself penniless, he 
was indebted to private charity for the means to leave the country, which he has done 
in compliance with the original order referred to above. 

While the order was in its form merely an expulsion from St. Petersburg, Mr. Pinkos 
understood it to be an order to leave the Empire, in view of the fact that similar measures 
had been taken in Moscow and other cities, and of the announcement in the public 
press that foreign Jews were to be excluded from the country. 

The Secretary of State instructs me to state to your excellency that in the presence 
of the fact that an American citizen has been compelled to leave Russia on no other 
ground than that he is the professor of a particular creed or the holder of certain relig- 
ious views, it becomes the duty of the Government of the United States, which impar- 
tially seeks to protect all of its citizens of whatever* origin or faith, solemnly, but 
with all respect to the Government of His Imperial Majesty, to protest. As this 
order of expulsion is understood to apply to all foreign Jews, in certain cities or local- 
ities, at least, of Russia, it is, of course, apparent that the same is notdhected specially 
against the Government of which Mr. Pinkos is a citizen, and, indeed, the long stand- 
ing amity which has united the interests of Russia with those of the Government of 
the United States would of itself forbid a remote suspicion that such might be the 
case. Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, the United States could not fail to 
look upon the expulsion of one of its citizens from Russia on the simple ground of his 
religious ideas or convictions except as a grievance akin to that which Russia would 
doubtless find in the expulsion of one of her own subjects from the United States on 
the ground of his attachment to the faith of his fathers. 

It having been intimated to the Secretary of State by this legation that the reason 
of this order may be found in the supposed implication of Jews in the plots formed 
against the life of His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor, the Secretary directs me to 
say that in so far as this may be true the Government of Russia has the entire sym- 



TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 113 

pathy of the Government of the United States in all just preventive efforts, and if 
there exists any good evidence that Mr. Pinkos has been connected with any of these 
attempts the Government of the United States could not object to the expulsion on 
that ground. But neither the police authorities in the several communications which 
the members, of the consulate general and this legation have had with them in their 
efforts to obtain relief for Mr. Pinkos, nor your excellency's department in the notes 
addressed to this legation on the subject, have ever intimated the existence of such 
a charge. Nor does the character of citizens of the United States of Jewish faith 
afford ground for the supposition that they would be likely to engage in conspiracies 
or plots against the established government of the country. 

From the foundation of the United States as a Nation, they have been entitled to 
full and unrestricted privileges of citizens, and have shown themselves to be peaceable 
and law observing in their conduct, quiet and industrious in their habits, and are 
esteemed a valuable portion of the community; so that, in so far as the regulations for 
tlie expulsion of foreign Jews from Russia affects American citizens, whatever may be 
the conduct of their coreligionists of this or other countries, it is an unjust reflection 
upon American Jews as a class and a discrimination which can not be acquiesced in 
by my Government. 

As, then, it does not appear that any criminal or improper conduct has been estab- 
lished against Mr. Pinkos, the Secretary confidently submits to His Imperial Majesty's 
Government whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Pinkos has been interrupted in his 
peaceful occupations and expelled from Russia on the sole grounds that his religious 
views are of one kind rather than another, he is not justly entitled to make reclamation 
for the damage and loss to which he has been subjected. 

In thus presenting for consideration and appropriate action the views of my Govern- 
ment upon this important subject, I improve, etc., 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 881.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 20, 1880. 

Sir: It becomes my unpleasant duty to report another case of the enforcement 
against an American citizen of the order prohibiting foreign Jews to reside in St. 
Petersburg. The first knowledge which I had of the fact was obtained through a letter 
from Mr. Xviiite, our minister in Berlin, a copy of which and of my reply thereto I 
herewith inclose. 

From Mr. White's letter it will be seen that Mr. Marx Wilczynski, a citizen of the 
United States, having a passport issued in due form by the legation at Berlin, cajne 
to Russia on business as the agent of an American mercantile firm. On the 25th of 
last month he was ordered to leave St. Petersburg, the reason alleged for said order 
being that he was a Jew; and the following indorsement was placed upon his pass- 
port by the police authorities: 

"The bearer of this passport, a North American citizen, a merchant and a Jew, 
Marx Wilczynski, is forbidden to reside in St. Petersburg. 

"P. Sapcientre. 

"September 13, 1880." 

Mr. Wilczynski states that he had not time when this order was received to. apply 
to this legation for advice and assistance, but having reached Berlin, he now applies 
to me, through the legation in that city, to have the order of expulsion rescinded, and 
asks me to inform him what rights, if any, American citizens of the Israelitish faith 
have in Prussia. 

Acting upon the tenor of your instructions in the recent case of Mr. Pinkos, I have 
addressed to Baron Jomini, acting minister of foreign affairs, a note, of which I inclose 
a copy, protesting against the action of the police, as a new infringement upon the 
rights of American citizens and of international comity, and as an interference with the 
reciprocal liberty of commerce guaranteed by treaty. After embodying the views 
expressed in your No. 27, of the 4th ultimo, as cumulative of my note in the Pinkos case, 
a copy of which I transmitted with my No. 37, of the 16th ultimo, I asked the minister 
that Mr. Wilczynski might be permitted to return to Russia to prosecute his business 
engagements, and that the police authorities of St. Petersburg be instructed not to 
molest him in his lawful pursuits. 

I have received no answer as yet to my note to the minister in the case of Mr. Pinkos. 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 990.) 



114 TERMINATION OF THE, TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Foster to Baron Jomini. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 7, 1880. 

Excellency: I beg to bring to your excellency's attention the following facts, as 
they bave been reported to me by the Legation of the United States at Berlin. 

Mr. Marx Wilczynski, a citizen of the United States, is the agent of an American 
mercantile firm, and as such has much business in Russia. On his last visit to this 
country he was granted a passport by the American Legation at Berlin, with which 
he entered Russian territory, observing the proper requirements in regard to passports 
and encountered no difficulty until he reached St. Petersburg, where he was not per- 
mitted by the police authorities to remain, for the reason that he was a Jew; and an 
indorsement to that effect was placed upon his passport. He states that when this 
order was served upon him he did not have time to apply to this legation for advice 
or assistance, and he has taken the first opportunity after his expulsion to resort to the 
nearest diplomatic representative for interposition in his behalf. The interests of 
of the American mercantile firm which he represents require him to return to this 
country and this city. I inclose herewith the passport with which Mr. Wilczynski 
came to Russia, in order that your excellency may see the prohibitory order placed 
upon it by the police of this city. After due examination, I have to request that the 
passport may be returned to me. 

It became my duty, in the note which I had the honor to address to your excellency 
on the 2d ultimo, in a case similar to the present one, to make known the views of 
■my Government in regard to the expulsion of one of its citizens simply for the reason 
that he was a Jew rather than a believer in any other creed; and I must again respect- 
fully but solemnly protest against this new infringement upon the rights of American 
citizens and of the comity which should exist between friendly nations. 

Your excellency will not fail to notice that the action of the police authorities in 
the present case, as well as that of Mr. Pinkos, bears the grave aspect of an interfer- 
ence with the reciprocal liberty of commerce, which is guaranteed by solemn treaty 
stipulations, and the development of which is so ardently desired by both countries. 

On account of this new instance, it is regarded as important that it should be made 
clear to your excellency's Government that in the view of the United States the reli- 
gion professed by one of its citizens has no relation whatever to that citizen's right 
to the protection of the United States, and that in the eye of my Government an injury 
officially dealt to Mr. Wilczynski or Mr. Pinkos in St. Petersburg, on the sole ground 
that they are Jews, presents the same aspect that an injury officially done to a subject 
of Russia in New York, if he attends any particular church there, would to the view 
of His Majesty's Government. 

I have therefore respectfully to request that Mr. Wilczynski may be freely permitted 
to return to Russia to prosecute his business engagements and that the police authori- 
ties of St. Petersburg be instructed not to molest him in his lawful pursuits. In view 
of the exigencies which may require his early return, I venture to express the hope 
that it may be found convenient with an early reply to this request. 

It is gratifying to me to have this opportunity to reassure your excellency of my 
highest esteem and profound consideration. 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 992.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Foster. 

Legation op the United States, 

Berlin, October 15, 1880. 

My Dear Colleague: I take the liberty of sending you the inclosed passport of 
Mr. Wilczynski for the following reason: 

Mr. Wilczynski is the agent of an American mercantile firm, and has much business 
in Russia. On his last visit to that country he took out the inclosed passport at this 
legation and had no trouble until he reached St. Petersburg, where he was ordered to 
leave the place on account of his being a Jew by birth. An indorsenaent to this effect 
was made by the authorities on the back of his passport, which practically neutralizes 
the value of that paper in Russia in protecting him as an American citizen. 

Mr. Wilczynski states that he had not time when this occurred to apply for ad- 
vice and assistance to the American legation, but has now addressed a letter to you 
and has requested me to forward his passport in order that, if you think proper, you 
may appeal to the proper authorities to have the order of expulsion rescinded, or at 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 115 

any rate inform him what rights, if any, American citizens of the Israelitish faith have 
in Russia. 

He has taken out another passport at this legation in case he should have to return 
suddenly to Russia, and therefore I would request that his old passport would be 
returned to this legation when you shall have finished with it. 

I would also consider it a great favor if you would inform me, in view of other cases 
of the same nature, what reply I can safely make. 

I remain, etc., Andrew D. White, 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 991.) 

Mr. Foster to Mr. White. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 18, 1880. 

My Dear Colleague: I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, with 
which you inclose the passport of the American citizen Marx Wilczynski, with the 
indorsement of the police of St. Petersburg, forbidding him to reside here, and you 
inquire whether such order can be rescinded, and what rights American citizens of 
the Israelitish faith have in Russia. 

The laws of Russia impose certain disabilities upon all Jews, among which is the 
prohibition against residence in St. Petersburg and certain other localities. In the 
past few years this prohibition has been repeatedly enforced against Americans of the 
Jewish faith, and acquiesced in by my predecessors. I was thoroughly convinced 
of the injustice of the prohibition, but did not feel warranted in reversing the prece- 
dent set by my predecessors without first referring the question to the department. 
Secretary Evarts has instructed me in a recent case to protest against the expulsion 
of Jewish-American citizens, and I have accordingly done so. I will repeat the 
protest whenever occasion requires and endeavor to obtain relief for citizens of the 
United States; but whether the Russian Government will be influenced by my pro- 
test and endeavors remains to be seen. 

In Mr. Wilczynski's case I will send the minister of foreign affairs a note protesting 
against the action of the police authorities, and will ask that instructions be given 
to said authorities not to disturb him in his lawful pursuits in case he should return 
to this city. 

It will not be safe, however, for Mr. Wilczynski to come to Russia until I shall have 
obtained an assurance from the minister that he can do so without interference on the 
part of the authorities. It may be some time before I can receive an answer from 
the minister, as the Emperor is now in Crimea, and Gen. Melikoff to whose depart- 
ment the subject pertains, is also temporarily absent from this city. In case Mr, 
W.'s business affairs should make it urgent that he have an early reply, you will please 
inform me, and I will then consider the propriety of calling in person at the foreign 
office and pressing an early solution of the matter. 

The prohibition against Jewish residence in St. Petersburg was not strictly enforced 
until the late Nihilistic movement caused an order to be issued expelling all foreign 
Jews. I am satisfied that sooner or later the Russian Government must modify or 
repeal its illiberal laws respecting the Jews, and I will lose no proper opportunity to 
do what I can to hasten that event; but it is very doubtful whether it will consider 
the present an opportune time. 

I am, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 991.) 



Mr. Hay to Mr. Foster. 

Department op State, 

Washington, October 22, 1880. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Nos. 37 and 41, of the respective 
dates of the 16th and 21st ultimo, reporting your action upon the recent instructions of 
the department in the special case of Henry Pinkos, and upon the general subject of 
the expulsion of American citizens from Russian cities on no other ground than 
profession of the Hebrew faith. 

Your course appears to have been discreet, and it is hoped that you will press your 
representations to the successful establishment of the principle of religious toleration 
for our citizens peacefully^ residing or traveling abroad, which we as a Nation have such 
a deep interest in maintaining, 

I am, etc., John Hay, Acting Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 993.) 



116 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December .SO, 1880. 

Sie: In my No. 48, of October 20 last, I reported to you the case of the American citi- 
zen of Jewish faith, Marx Wilczynski, who had been expelled from St. Petersburg 
because of his religion. In my No. 37, of September 16, I reported the execution of 
your instructions in the case of Henry Pinkos. 

My notes on these two cases remained without any reply during the absence in Liva- 
dia of the Emperor and Mr. de Giers, the present head of the foreign office. Soon after 
their return, to wit, on the 10th instant, I called upon Mr. de Giers and directed his 
attention to my notes in the two cases of Messrs. Pinkos and Wilczynski, as presenting 
a question of much interest and importance to my Government, and regarding which 
it was highly desirable to reach a satisfactory settlement at as early a day as could be 
found convenient. 

Mr. de Giers said that, owing to the press of business upon his return to the capital, 
he had not been able to examine the question with care. I thereupon suggested that 
if he could name a day when it would be agreeable for me to call again at the foreign 
office, he might have an opportunity in the meantime to read my notes, which con- 
tained a statement of your views, and he was kind enough to fix upon the 16th instant 
for the conference. 

On the evening of the 13th instant, however, I received from him notes of reply in 
both cases, translations of which I inclose herewith. It will be seen that the answer 
to my protest, in the case of Pinkos, is in substance that all the acts of the Russian 
authorities complained of were in strict accordance with the existing laws. In Wil- 
czynski's case the minister states that, in view of the intervention of the legation, he 
will be permitted to return to St. Petersburg and remain for six months. It is to be 
noted that this is the extreme length of time granted to any foreign resident upon his 
national passport. 

Notwithstanding the definite character of these replies, I deemed it important to 
hold the conference with the minister agreed upon in my last visit, and I accordingly 
called at the foreign office at the hour designated on the 16th instant and was received 
by Mr. de Giers. I thanked him for the prompt answer which he had given to my 
notes in regard to Pinkos and Wilczynski, but I said that I had thought it desirable 
to have a personal interview (especially as the conclusions reached by his Govern- 
ment in neither case were entirely satisfactory), as in this way we might the better 
, reach some understanding and avoid future trouble. His answer in the case of Pinkos 
was that all the acts complained of were in strict accordance with the laws. In my 
effort to investigate the question I found great difficulty in learning what the laws 
were in relation to the Jews. I could find no digest of them, but had been given 
a large volume, in the Russian language, of nearly 1,200 pages, which I was 
informed related exclusively to the laws and regulations governing the Jews in Russia. 
It appeared almost impossible for me to learn what the laws now existing were, 
and he could readily understand the difficulty a foreign Jewish merchant or visitor 
would have in understanding them. I recognized the considerate attention which the 
Russian Government had shown to all the requests of the legation regarding American 
Jews; but my Government objected to the discrimination on account of religion or 
race, which made the intervention of the legation necessary. It claimed for its 
citizens of the Jewish faith the same rights and protection extended to other American 
citizens, and insisted that there should be no distinction in applying the treaty 
guaranty of reciprocal liberty of commercial intercourse. If the Russian Government 
was not prepared to concede this, then, until the views of the two Governments could 
be harmonized, as new cases were constantly arising, it was desirable to know what the 
laws and regulations in regard to foreign Jews were, and whether some general rule 
or course of action could be indicated, so that American Jews might know what treat- 
ment they might expect. 

The minister, Mr. de Giers, answered that the Russian Government had found the 
Jewish question a very vexatious and disagreeable one, both as to the internal rela- 
tions and the treatment of foreign Jews. He then proceeded at some length to give a 
historical sketch of the question in its legal, political, and social aspects which, 
although quite interesting, I am constrained to omit on account of the space which 
this dispatch will necessarily occupy without it. 

The experience which Russia had had with its Jewish subjects (who are almost 
exclusively Polish) had shown them to be a bad class of society largely engaged in 
smuggling and illegal commercial transactions. Of late years they have been active 
participants in revolutionary conspiracies and plots against the life of the Emperor 
and had shown a restless and disloyal inclination. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OE 1832. 117 

The minister said there was every disposition to enforce the laws as leniently as 
possible against American Jews, especially as they were few and usually of the better 
class, but owing to the large number of German and Austrian Jews on the border it 
was difficult to relax or repeal the laws. 

Since the case of Pinkos had occurred the Government had been studying the ques- 
tion so as to adopt some general regulation which would more nearly meet the views 
of the United States, and that within the past few days it had been made the subject 
of a general ministerial conference. 

The minister of the interior, Gen. Melikoff, to whose department the subject per- 
tains, would endeavor to make a satisfactory settlement. He then explained to me 
that the treatment of Pinkos arose out of a peculiar circumstance of the time. • The 
investigations following the explosions in the winter palace and attempt upon the 
Emperor's life showed that more than half of those implicated were Jews. This 
occasioned a strong demand for the rigorous enforcement of the old laws which had for 
some time been very loosely carried out. Pinkos became involved in the police 
surveillance without any intention on the part of the authorities to be wanting in 
consideration to American residents. 

I asked Mr. de Giers if the same liberal permission would be extended to other 
American Jews coming to Russia, as had been indicated in his note regarding 
Wilczynski. If so, and I could advise my Government to that effect, it would 
avoid many annoyances and relieve the foreign office and legation from much trouble. 

He replied that so far as he was concerned a like consideration would be shown in 
all meritorious cases, and at the expiration of six months even longer time might be 
given if desired. But until some general decision was made it would be difficult to 
give an assurance which would cover all cases. Responding to my inquiry he said 
the subject belonged specially to Gen. Melikoff's department, and there would be 
no impropriety in my confeuing with him regarding it. 

I alluded to the large number of Jews resident in St. Petersburg, estimated by per- 
sons who had given attention to the matter at 30,000, while the number registered by 
the authorities under the laws I had understood was less than 2,000. While I was 
gratified at this liberal action, I asked that no greater rigor should be shown toward 
Americans of the Jewish faith than to Russian Jews. 

The minister answered that he was not accurately informed as to the statistics, but 
he had not thought the number of Jews was so large. This class of residents was con- 
stantly coming and going and the number varied greatly from year to year. But 
there could not exist any discrimination to the disadvantage of American citizens. 

In the course of the conversation I stated that while the object of the interview was 
to obtain proper recognition of the rights of American Jews, my Government took a 
great interest in the amelioration of the condition of the Jewish race in other nations, 
and I was satisfied that it would be highly gratified at the statement of the minister 
that a commission was now considering the question of the modification in a liberal 
sense of the Russian laws regarding the Jews. The experience of the United States 
has amply shown the wisdom of removing all discriminations against them in the laws, 
and of placing their race upon an equal footmg with all other citizens. 

Mr. de Giers said he fully sympathized in theory with the view t iken by my Gov- 
ernment, as most in consonance with the spirit of the age. But in Russia the subject 
could not be treated as an abstract question. A long series of legislative acts and 
regulations, the strong prejudices of the masses of the Russian people, the bad charac- 
ter of great numbers of the Jewish lace, and various other political and social circum- 
stances had to be taken into consideration. 

At the close of the interview, at my request, Mr. de Giers said he would have pre- 
pared for me a memorandum containing an abstract of the leading provisions of the 
laws and regulations affecting the Jews. 

On the day following, the 17th instant, in a note addressed to Mr. de Giers, I 
acknowledged the receipt of his two notes of the 13th instant, in the cases of Pinkos 
and Wilczynski and stated that in view of the conference of the day previous, I would 
limit myself to forwarding copies of the correspondence to you, and await your further 
instructions. 

Being desirous of impressing the views of our Government upon Gen. Loris Melikoff, 
the minister of the interior, to whose department has been intrusted the execution of 
most of the late reforms in administration and legislation, I called upon him on the 
31st instant, and had an interview of some length, in the course of which I presented 
to him substantially the same views as developed in the conference with the minister 
of foreign affairs, both in relation to the position of our Government in claiming equal 
protection and privileges for its citizens in Russia, and protecting them against the 
discrimination made against American Jews, as also expressing the sympathy of the 
United States with the amelioration of the condition of the Jews in other countries. 



118 TEKMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Gen. Melikoff received me very cordially and replied that he was very glad to talk 
with me on the subject, and disposed to do everything in his power to meet my views. 
So far as special exemptions were concerned they would be readily made whenever 
requested by me, but that it was impossible at present to change the laws. If the 
American Jews were the only persons of this class they had to deal with, there would 
be no difl&culty in conforming the laws as to foreign Jews to the views of the Government 
of the United States, as there was no fear that my country would send them nihilists, 
conspirators, or smugglers. But there was no end of trouble from the Jews of Germany 
and Austria and along the western frontier, which compelled the most rigorous meas- 
ures. I could form no idea of the embarrassments which surrounded the Government 
in dealing with this question. The investigations showed that they were the most 
troublesome element and were found in all the conspiracies, and both the safety of the 
Government and due regard for public opinion made it impossible to change the laws. 
However much the minister sympathized with my desire to see some liberal modi- 
fication of the laws, it must be borne in mind that there was a wide difference in the 
situation of the United States and Russia on this question. In the United States they 
were comparatively few in number, generally of the better class, and no fear was felt 
as to their machinations either from within or without; whereas Russia required not 
only to look closely after the 6,000,000 within its borders, but especially to protect 
itself from the worst class of Jews of Germany and Austria, who gave an immense deal 
of trouble. It was on account of the latter especially that it was necessary to maintain 
the regulation prohibiting foreign Jews to come to St. Petersburg 

So far as concerned Jews who were bona fide American citizens (not disguised 
German Jews), he would assine me of the most liberal treatment, as he knew it was the 
desire of the Emperor to show all possible consideration to American citizens. If 
such came to St. Petersbm'g and encountered any trouble, if I would merely send him 
an unofficial note he would give them all the time I might ask for them to remain 
here to attend to their business. He expected to go to see the Emperor that day and 
would inform him that he had given me assurance that the American Jews should 
have this privilege, and he was sure his sovereign would approve his action, but this 
would be a special exception, as the existing laws must stand for the present for the 
protection of the Government. 

I thanked the minister for the consideration which he proposed to show to this 
class of my countrymen and to the legation, and I assured him that I highly appre- 
ciated the friendly spirit manifested toward the United States. I was, however, 
sorry that the laws could not be entirely repealed, and such a coinse would be more in 
accordance with the views entertained by my Government, and it would be much 
more gratifying to it to see all the prohibitions against the Jews, native as well as 
foreign, abolished. 

I have fmther to report that, acting upon the spirit of your instructions contained 
in your No. 2, of April 14 last, and with the object of impressing more fully upon the 
ministry the views of our Government on the general subject of reform in Jewish 
legislation, I have also had a conversation with the minister of worship, who listened 
with much interest to my presentation of the subject. He said that a commission 
was now engaged in studying the question of reform in these laws. He frankly recog- 
nized that the laws were not fully in accordance with the spirit of the age, and stated 
that it was the earnest desire of the Russian Government to conform its code on this 
subject more nearly to the civilization of this century, but it found itself sm-rounded 
by many difficulties to which other nations were not subjected, and that great prudence 
had to be exercised in the remedial measure taken. 

I had waited some days to communicate to you the correspondence referred to 
and the result of my efforts to reach a satisfactory conclusion or solution of the ques- 
tion, in the hope that Mr. de Giers would be able to send me the promised memo- 
randum regarding Jewish laws, as a knowledge of them is material to a full under- 
standing of the questions at issue. I thought proper to again visit the foreign office 
on yesterday, and in recalling the subject to Mr. de Giers's attention I referred to 
my interview with the minister of the interior. Gen. Melikoff, as very pleasant and 
cordial, but said that that interview developed more fully that the Russian Govern- 
ment was disposed to grant what we desired only as a favor, when my Governinent 
asked it as a right. We objected to any discrimination being made against American 
citizens on account of religion, as our Government was bound to extend equal pro- 
tection to all its citizens without distinction; and, while I highly appreciated the 
consideration which it was proposed to show to American citizens of the Jewish faith, 
I feared my Government would not be satisfied with the attitude which was assumed 
on the question as a matter of right. 

The minister explained that all that could be done under existing circumstances 
was to except American Jews in the manner proposed from the rigorous operations 
of the laws. It was to be borne in mind that the United States is probably the most 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 119 

advanced nation in the world in the application of liberal laws and principles, but 
that the same degree of liberality could not be applied to countries differently situated. 
And that even in the United States had it not been found somewhat difficult to make 
a universal application? He did not refer to the former treatment of the negroes, 
but to the existing state of affairs. Were not there laws and regulations which denied 
certain rights and privileges to a certain class of persons, and were we not seeking 
to exclude or regulate Chinese immigrants and deny to them the rights extended to 
other inhabitants? Besides, the Jews of the United States were of the better class 
of their race and there was not the same reason for their exclusion as in Russia. 
Most of the Jews of this country are Polish, who are recognized as among the worst 
class, and are bad, very bad, mem^bers of society, as a rule. They are constantly 
giving the Government trouble, prominent in conspiracies, disorders, smuggling, 
and deceit. For instance, in the troubles a few days ago in the university at Mos- 
cow more than half — yes, three-fourths — of those concerned in the trouble were Jewish 
students. (The minister alluded to the disorder which occurred at Moscow 10 days 
ago, when the students of the university organized a "college rebellion" owing to 
some dissatisfaction mth certain professors, and by order of the governor general 
about 400 of them sent to prison for a short time.) 

The Government, after generations of exclusion, had opened the universities and 
schools to the Jews, and, said the minister, this is the way they repay its liberality. 
And so it is almost always when disorders occur. There was every disposition to meet 
the wishes of the Government of the United States, but it shoulcl consider the condi- 
tion of the country, and remember the difficulty Russia finds in abrogating its laws 
on this question. 

I replied that I recognized the difficulty the Russian Government had in treating 
the subject so long as the laws existed, but would not the abrogation of the laws pro- 
scribing the Jews as such be the easiest way of solving the difficulty? By placing 
them on the same footing as other inhabitants they would not then be a proscribed 
race, and would be punishable as others for bad conduct. Such a course would be 
highly gratifying to the United States, and I hoped that this Government at no dis- 
tant day would see its way clear to take such a step. I was aware of no law in the 
United States which limited the rights of its inhabitants on account of race or religion. 
So far as Chinese immigrants were concerned, it was true that trouble had arisen in 
certain localities, but this was not occasioned by any laws curtailing their rights, 
neither had the Government at any time denied or evaded its treaty obligations, but 
had met the difficulty by direct negotiations with the Chinese Government and with 
satisfactory results for both nations. 

The minister said he regretted not having sent me the memorandum on the Jewish 
laws, but it had been found a more serious task than had been anticipated, and longer 
time had been asked to complete it, but that he hoped to be able to send it to me very 
soon. 

Such are the results of my efforts to execute your instructions and to secure to Ameri- 
can citizens of Jewish faith the same rights as are accorded to other citizens of the 
United States. I am sorry not to accompany this dispatch with a full statement of 
the Russian laws bearing on the question, but as soon as it is received from the foreign 
office I will forward it. " You will find some reference to these laws in Mr. Hoffman's 
No. 109 of May 29, 1879, which will be of interest and pertinent to pending cases. 
My investigation has shown that the proscriptions of which we complain are based upon 
laws which were in force at the time of the execution of our treaty of commerce in 1832, 
and that as a matter of fact no greater privileges are granted to Russian than to American 
Jews similarly situated. Both are in a great measure under the ban of the laws. 
To the laws prohibiting Jews from residing in St. Petersburg there are various ex- 
ceptions, but the Government reserves to itself the right of applying or withholding 
the exceptional privilege as it may think fit. 

I have not been able" to learn that any greater rigor in this respect has been shown 
to American Jews than to any of their coreligionists. As a general rule favorable con- 
sideration has been given to the representatives of this legation in their behalf. And 
while the Government declines to change the laws, I have been given to understand, 
as you will see from the report of my conference with the ministers of foreign affairs 
and that of the interior, that American Jews in whose behalf I intervene will be_ per- 
mitted to visit and remain in St. Petersburg a reasonable time to pursue their business 
avocations. I have already referred to the fact that under Russian law no foreigner 
can reside in this coufitry more than six months upon his national passport, as after that 
date he must obtain the consent of the Russian Government, v/hich claims and exer- 
cises the right of refusing its consent at its will. Under the arrangement proposed as to 
American Jews the only distinction in fact between them and other American resi- 
dents is that a special application in their case would have to be made through the 



120 TERMIlSrATIOI>r OF THE TREATY OF 1832. - 

legation, tlie object being, I infer, to have its indorsement of the legitimacy of their 
business as well as of their citizenship — a kind_ of guaranty of their good conduct, a 
matter which it might at times be difficult to give. 

It will thus be seen that while the Russian Government declines to accept the views 
as set forth by you and denies that the treaty of 1832 concedes to American citizens of 
Jewish faith any other or greater privileges than those enjoyed by Russian subjects of 
the same race, it has manifested a friendly disposition toward American citizens in the 
application of the laws and virtually offers to suspend their operation toward all Jewish 
citizens of the United States who can establish the fact that they come to Russia on 
legitimate business. 

I am, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 996.) ' 



Mr. De Giers to Mr. Foster. 

Imperial Ministry op Foreign Affairs, 

Department op Interior Relations, 

St. Petersburg, December 1, 1880. 

Sir : The imperial ministry has not failed to take into serious consideration the con- 
tents of the note which you addressed to it on the 2d of September, on the subject of 
the expulsion from the Russian territory of Mr. Henry Pinkos, a citizen of the United 
States. 

The ministry hopes that an accord in the appreciation of the affair in question will 
not fail to be established if the Government of the United States shall be satisfied that 
all the measures of which Mr. Pinkos complains are in perfect conformity with the 
Russian laws. 

In fact it is in the virtue of the regulations which authorize the residence of foreign 
Israelites in Russia only upon certain conditions that Mr. Pinkos found himself 
included in a general measure which was applied to him without the police having to 
inquire into his conduct. 

It is also in virtue of the regulations, of which he has no right to plead ignorance, and 
the application of which can equalljr give him no right to indemnity, that Mr. Pinkos, 
having resided six months in Russia, could not leave Cronstadt without being fur- 
nished with a passport from the proper authorities. You will please observe in fact, 
sir, that the above-named person was not reconducted to the frontier, or embarked 
with the aid of the imperial authorities — in a word, that he did not undergo the process 
of expulsion, to which he was liable. 

The legation of the United States, having intervened in his favor, by its note of 
April 8 last, the Imperial Government hastened to comply with the request made in 
the same communication and to ameliorate the condition of Mr. Pinkos in the very 
manner the legation had indicated. A delay of three months was consequently 
accorded to Pinkos to liquidate his affairs, and he was permitted at the expiration of 
this term to leave Russia on the same conditions as every foreigner wishes to repass 
the frontier, nothing dispensing Pinkos from the obligations which the regulations 
prescribe on these occasions. On the contrary, the peculiar circumstances of his posi- 
tion and the terms which had been granted him by special favor to regulate all the 
conditions of his departure, should have induced him to inform himself of the legal 
formalities required by the circumstances. 

Thus the proceeding which our authorities took toward Mr. Pinkos present them- 
selves both in their principle and their execution not as exceptional measures, but 
as the legal consequences of general laws, the effects of which the individual above 
named has had to undergo. 

It is evident, too, as the note of the 2d of September acknowledges, that the meas- 
ures taken on this occasion were not marked by any spirit contrary to the considera- 
tion which the Imperial Government has always professed for the quality of an Ameri- 
can citizen. 

As regards the exceptional dispositions of which foreign Israelites have been the 
object in Russia, and which have been provoked by their presumed participation in 
revolutionary proceedings, it is certain that the measures of the administration toward 
the Israelites m question have never had an exceptional character. If the prescrip- 
tions which concern them are rigorously executed, this rigor has nothing special in it, 
but results simply from the increased vigilance occasioned by present circumstances, 
which has led the imperial authorities to discover irregularities in the legal position 
of many foreigners residing in Russia. It became the duty of the imperial adminis- 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 121 

tration to see to the strict observance of the existing laws, availing itself for this piirpose 
of the legal means in their hands. 

It is in this way that Mr. Pinkos has felt the effect of the precautions taken in con- 
sequence of the proceedings of the social revolutionists, although the conduct of this 
foreigner happily sheltered him from the direct action of the measures adopted to 
secure the public order. 

The imperial ministry has endeavored to show that Mr. Pinkos has not been the 
object of any proceeding which goes beyond the regular application of the existing 
laws. Convinced that in strict justice no irregularity can be imputed to our authori- 
ties, the ministry would consider itself so much the more fortunate if it can succeed iti 
inducing the Government of the United States to share this conviction, inasmuch as 
the affau- in question affects those relations which the- Imperial Government desires 
to maintarQ, on all occasions, in their unvarying cordiality. 

Keceive, sir, etc., Giers. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1002.) 



Mr. Giers to Mr;. Foster. 

Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Department of Interior Relations, 

St. Petersburg, December 11, 1880. 

Sir: In a note of October 7 last, you addressed yourself to the imperial ministry of 
foreign affairs, with a view to obtain for Mr. Wilczynski, a citizen of the United States 
of America, permission to return to Russia, where the interests of a commercial enter- 
prise, of which he is agent, called him. 

The imperial ministry of foreign affairs hastened to the ministry of the interior the 
aforementioned request. 

A recent communication of the minister of the interior enables me to inform you 
that in view of the intervention of the legation of the United States Mr. Wilczynski 
is authorized to return to St. Petersburg, and to remain here six months. The com- 
petent authorities have been informed of the ministerial decision. 

Returning to you the passport of the said Wilczynski, which accompanied the 
above-mentioned note of the legation of the United States, I profit by this occasion, 
etc. 



Giers. 



(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1003.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Giers, 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 5, 1880. 

Excellency: I have the honor to aknowedge the receipt of your two notes of the 
Ist instant, the one relating to the case of Henry Pinkos and the other to the case of 
Marx Wilczynski, both American citizens of the Jewish faith. 

In view of the conference which I had with your excellency on those and kindred 
matters yesterday, I do not deem it necessary at present to make further reply to 
said notes than to say that I will forward copies thereof, as well as a report of the said 
conference, to the Secretary of State at Washington and await his instructions. 
With the renewed, etc., 

John W. Foster, 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1004.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. White. 

St. Petersburg, December 14, 1880. 

My Dear Colleague: On the 18th of October last I acknowledged receipt of your 
letter regarding Mr. Wilczynski's expulsion from St. Petersburg, and wrote you a 
second letter on the subject in October. 

I now have the answer of the minister of foreign affairs to my application for Mr. 
Wilczynski's free return to St. Petersburg. He states that Mr. W. will be permitted 



122 TERMINATION OF THE. TEEATY OP 1832. 

to return to this city and remain for six months, and that the authorities have been 
BO notified. This is the extreme limit of time allowed by the laws of Russia to all 
foreigners, without distinction, entering with a passport of their nationality, at the 
expiration of which time they are required to obtain a Russian passport or police 
permission of residence if they wish to remain. 

I return the passport which you sent me. 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1004.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December SI, 1880. 

Sie: At a late hour on yesterday afternoon I received yom' cablegram dated the 
29th instant, as follows: 

"Urge treaty obligations in the Wilczynski case. Further information awaited." 

It will be seen by my dispatch No* 73, of yesterday, which was just completed 
when yom* cablegram arrived, that I have been giving attention to the case and have 
obtained for him permission to retiun to St. Petersburg and remain for the limit of 
time granted to all foreigners upon their national passports, but that the Russian Gov- 
ernment declines to modify the existing laws prohibiting foreign Jews to reside in 
this city. 

I inclose copies of the correspondence had with the legation at Berlin, which con- 
tains some additional facts relating to Mr. Wilczynski. 

It appeared from the letter of Minister "White, of October 15, inclosed with my 
No. 48, of October 20, that Mr. Wilczynski when ordered to leave St. Petersburg 
made no application to this legation for advice or assistance. He informed Minister 
White that he had addressed me a letter in regard to his case, but no such letter has 
been received. He has not again appeared at the legation in Berlin to learn the result 
of his application for permission to return to St. Petersburg, and Mr. Everett writes 
that he is now probably in Russia. If so, he has never made his presence known to 
this legation, and it is to be presumed that he has not been molested. 
I am, etc., 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1004.) 



Mr. Everett to Mr. Foster. 

Legation of the United States, 

Berlin, December 18, 1880. 

Sir: In Mr. White's absence I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 14th 
instant, returning Mr. Wilczjniski's passport and stating he would be allowed to stay 
six months if he returned there. At the time his old passport was sent to you Mr. 
Wilczynski took out a new one, and said that he should not have any difficulty in 
returning to St. Petersburg and staying as long as he wished for business purposes, 
as he was personally known to high officials in some of the departments with which he 
had transacted business for some years. But his grievance was that he was expelled, 
as he understood, for being a Jew, and he wished to ascertain whether there was such 
a law against Jews, and whether the American legation could protect our citizens 
against it. 

I have been informed by one of the Russian secretaries of the legation here that 
there is no law in St. Petersburg expelling Jews merely because they are Jews; but 
that probably this gentleman had failed to comply with some regulations in his buoi- 
ness transactions, or had perhaps associated with some of the suspected characters in 
the city, or was one of the Polish refugees, who it appears are an obnoxious class there. 

Mr. Wilczynski has not called at this legation again, and it is probable that he is 
now in Russia, as he expressed his intention of returning there shortly. 
- With many thanks for the trouble you have taken in the matter, 
I am, etc., 

H. Sidney Everett. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1005.) 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 123 

Mr. Foster to Mr. Evarts. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 31, 1880. 

Sir: In my No. 73 of yesterday I have given the result of my efforts to obtain a 
modification of the laws of Russia in regard to foreign Jews, so as to exempt American 
Jews from the prohibition against residence in St. Petersburg and other cities of the 
Empire. As a supplement to that dispatch, it may be of interest to have some infor- 
mation as to the conditions and treatment of the Russian subjects of the Jewish faith .^ 

From early times there have existed laws prohibitingthe entrance or residence of 
Jews in Russia, and while there were occasional exceptions to the laws, the prohibi- 
tion was generally enforced with rigor up to the incorporation of Poland with the 
Empire. From that date it was sought to confine the Jews to the Polish Provinces. 
But the Jews in these Provinces furnished their full contingent, and, it is alleged by 
them, more than their ration in the Russian Army; and as it often happened that at 
the expiration of their term of service they were in different or distant parts of the 
Empire from their homes, upon their discharge they were permitted to live in the 
Provinces where discharged, because they were old soldiers, and in spite of the laws 
prohibiting the residence there of Jews. The presence of the greater part of this race 
in other districts of Russia than Poland is accounted for in this way, they being either 
discharged soldiers or their children. 

But, in addition to these, a considerable number of Jews are found in the large cities 
and commercial towns, many of whom are authorized to become permanent residents 
under exceptions which have been made to the prohibitory laws. For instance, 
Jews possessing a certain mercantile standing are admitted as members of the first 
or commercial guild, and with the authorization of the law, engage in banking and 
mercantile pursuits. And these members of the guild are permitted to employ a 
certain number of Jewish clerks, servants, artisans, and other employees. So, also, 
exceptions are made in favor of members of the learned professions and graduates of 
the universities and other educational or scientific institutions. The latitude of 
constructions placed upon these exceptions depends very much upon the will of the 
local authorities, as also the strictness with which the prohibitory laws are enforced; 
so that in all cities of Russia the number of Jewish residents will be found more or less 
in excess of the police registry and greater than the strict interpretation of the law 
authorizes. For instance, persons who have given the subject close _ attention, asl 
stated to the minister of foreign affairs, estimate the number of Jewish residents in 
St. Petersburg at 30,000, while it is stated the number registered by the police author- 
ities is 1,500. From the same source I learn that, while the Government does not 
recognize their legal existence, nine synagogues in this city are known to the author- 
ities, and that there are other private places of worship; and that, while only one 
Hebrew school is registered by the police, there are between 3,000 and 4,000 children 
in unauthorized Jewish schools of this capital. As another indicatioii of the extent 
of Jewish influence, it is worthy of note that one or more Jewish editors or writers 
are said to be employed on the leading newspapers of St. Petersburg and Moscow 
almost without exception. It is claimed that Jews of wealth, of estabHshed professions 
or occupations, or of good social standing or influence, have little difliculty in securing 
express or tacit exemption from the laws. 

These facts indicate that the laws proscribing the Jewish race are not enforced with 
great strictness, and intelligent Jewish residents of this city, native Russian subjects, 
who are laboring for the amelioration of the condition of their brethren, recognize 
the great advance which has been made during the present reign in the liberal con- 
struction which is placed upon the laws, in the exceptions which have been made 
tending to relax their vigor, and in the increased privileges which have been granted, 
such as admission to the imiversities, the practice of professions and avocations, and 
holding of government oflSce, denied to them a generation ago. At the same time the 
proscription laws remain and the Government reserves to itself the right to enforce 
them with strictness or relax them at its will. 

It is to be noted that intelligent Russian Jews repel the charge that their race in 
this country have manifested a spirit of lawlessness or hostility to the established 
Government, and they deny that a greater proportion of Jews than of other classes 
have been implicated in the conspiracies or attempts upon the life of the Emperor, 
and in confirmation of their denial they point to the fact that of the 16 persons who 
were arraigned last month in the state trials of the nihilists only I was a Jew. 
I am, etc., 
(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1005.) John W. Foster. 



124 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster. 

Department of State, 

Washington, March 3, 1881. 

Sir: Your several dispatches, numbered 73, 74, and 75, of the 30th and 31st 
of December, in relation to the treatment of American Jews in Russia have been 
received and I have the pleasure of commending your zealous presentation of the cases 
of Pinkos and WUczynski, and of the general questions involved. The assurances 
you have received as to the liberal treatment hereafter to be accorded, as an act of 
comity and courtesy by the military authorities to American citizens visiting Russia 
are fully appreciated. 

I have observed, however, that iq^ some of your conversations and writings with the 
foreign office you give prominence to the natural American sympathy with oppressed 
Jews elsewhere as a motive for our solicitude as to the treatment of Jews in Russia. 
Such solicitude might very properly exist; but in your presentation of the facts you 
should be careful to impress that we ask treaty treatment for our aggrieved citizens 
not because they are Jews, but because they are Americans. Russia's treatment of 
her own Jews or of foreign Jews resorting thither may in determinate cases attract the 
sympathy of the American people, but the aim of the Government of the United 
States is the specific one of protecting its own citizens. If the hardships to which 
Russian and foreign Jews are subjected involves our own citizens, we thiak we have 
just grounds for remonstrance and expectancy of better treatment. 

This Government does not know or inquh-e the religion of the American citizens it 
protects. It can not take cognizance of the methods by which the Russian authorities 
may arrive at the conclusion or conjecture that any given American citizen professes 
the Jewish faith. The discussion of the recent cases has not as yet developed any judicial 
procedure whereby an American citizen, otherwise unoffending against the laws, is 
to be convicted of Judaism, if that be an offense under Russian law; and we are indis- 
posed to regard it as a maintainable point that a religious belief is, or can be, a military 
offense, to be dealt with under the arbitrary methods incident to the existence of a 
"state of siege." 

This Government is not unmindful of the difiiculties under which, as alleged, the 
Russian Government labors in dealing with those of her subjects whom she may deem 
disaffected; but the reasons adduced and the methods adopted against them should 
have no application to American citizens sojourning peacefully for business or pleasure, 
in Russia, for they are not to be charged with abstract political disaffection to a gov- 
ernment to which they owe no allegiance; and, if charged with the commission of 
\uilawful acts they should have guilt explicitly imputed and proven. In the latter 
case the religion of the accused can not be admitted as proof or presumption of guilt or 
of innocence. 

It is not the desire of this Government to embarrass that of Russia by insistence upon 
these points with any degree of harshness when the disposition reported in your dis- 
patches is so conciliatory and the treatment offered may effectively operate to remove 
or prevent future causes of complaint based upon the ill-treatment of American citizens 
alleged to be Jews. It is most desirable, however, that you should not pretermit your 
efforts to bring the matter to such a stage as will insure for peaceful and law-abiding 
American citizens in Russia like treaty rights and personal freedom of creed as Rus- 
sians enjoy ia the United States. 

Wm. M. Evarts. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1007.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, March 25, 1881 . 

Sir: In acknowledging the receipt of Department No. 55 of the 3d instant, I desire 
to express my thanks for the kindly commendation of my presentation of the cases 
of Pinkos and Wilczynski, and of the general question of the treatment of the Jews in 
Russia. 

I make careful note of the desire manifested by the late honorable Secretary^ of 
State to appeal strongly to the treaty guarantee of personal freedom to American citi- 
zens sojourning peaceably, for business or pleasure, in Russia, without regard to their 
religious belief. I have constantly made this appeal to the Russian authorities. But 
it will be noted in my No. 73, of December 30, that I called attention to the fact that 



TEKMINATIOlsr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 125 

the Russian Government denied that the treaty of 1832 secures to American citizens of 
the Jewish faith sojourning in Russia any other or greater privileges than those enjoyed 
in this Empire by Russian subjects of the same faith. From the concluding sentence 
of Department No. 55, it would seem that the late Secretary's construction of the 
treaty was that American citizens in Russia were entitled to the same rights and 
persoml freedom as are extended to Russian subjects sojourning in the United States. 
This interpretation has never as yet been presented to the Russian Government, 
nor has the treaty been so considered by my predecessors. If that view is to be 
insisted upon, I will thank you for specific instructions regarding this point. As 
stated in my No. 73, the laws imposing disabilities upon Jews, both foreign and native, 
antedate the treaty of 1832, and the minister of foreign affairs claims that said treaty 
does not exempt American Jews coming here from their operation. 

I have strongly insisted that the passport of his Government should protect every 
peaceable American citizen coming to Russia, and that it is not proper to institute 
inquiry as to the religious belief of such citizen. The department is correct in the 
supposition indicated, that no American citizen has been convicted of Judaism by 
"judicial procedure." But it is to be borne in mind that in Russia it is not necessary 
that a judicial procedure should take place, or even the "military state of siege" 
exist before a person undergoes sentence of the law. The laws and regulations in 
question are usually intrusted to the police authorities, and it is sufficient for them to 
be satisfied in their own minds that the individual comes within the prohibitions to 
have them enforced. 

I shall not fail to continue to press the subject upon the Russian Government at 
€very proper opportunity. 

I am, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1012.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, March 24, 1881. 

Sir: A disgraceful series of disorders have occurred during the past month in the 
southwestern Provinces of Russia, directed against the Jewish residents, resulting in 
the loss of a number of lives and the destruction of an enormous amount of property. 
The scenes of these riots have been at and in the vicinity of Elizabethgrad and Kief, 
with less serious demonstrations at Odessa and other places. The participants have 
been almost exclusively of the lowest and most ignorant classes in the towns and 
cities, joined by the peasants, and the demonstrations in the two localities first named 
appear to have been so powerful that for days the authorities were paralyzed and the 
rioters were able to give full sway to their work of bigotry and destruction. In Kief, 
a city of over 100,000 inhabitants, with a large Jewish population, the work was so 
thorough, it is stated, that not a single Jewish house escaped, the inmates being driven 
out, beaten and stoned, and some of them killed, and the contents plundered or thrown 
into the streets. The damage there is estimated at several millions of roubles, and 
business has been seriously affected thereby; many commercial houses have sus- 
pended payment, other bankruptcies are feared, and the prices of provisions and 
articles of prime necessity have temporarily risen greatly in price. Massacres and 
destruction of property have become so threatening in other localities, where no actual 
outbreaks have taken place, that the Jews in large numbers have fled from their homes 
and taken refuge across the frontier in Austria, or in Moscow where the military force 
is sufficient to guarantee safety. In some instances the railroad officials have refused 
to run the trains by which the Jews were seeking to escape, for fear of attack from the 
infuriated mobs debauched with liquor and plunder. 

Indiscriminate pillage became so much feared that Christians chalked their houses 
with crosses or exhibited holy images with lighted lamps before them to save them- 
selves from the fury of the rabble. The acts which have been committed are more 
worthy of the Dark Ages than of the present century. 

The authorities were slow to realize the extent of the danger, but when once awak- 
ened to its widespread and deep-seated character they have manifested a commendable 
zeal in suppressing the riots and in arresting and punishing the offenders. National 
troops have been freely used, sending them to the most threatened districts, and in 
some places, as at Odessa, they have promptly intervened with force to put down the 
riots. 

Various causes have been assigned for these outbreaks additional to the prevailing 
bigotry and religious hatred of the lower classes toward the Jews. The country has not 



126 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

been prosperous for sometime past; taxes have been heavy and exacted with severity; 
the depreciated paper currency has increased the cost of all commodities; the winter 
has been one of privation and suffering, and with many families indebtedness has been 
the rule annually. The Jews, being the money changers, traders, and speculatx)r3, 
have profited by this state of affairs, and the poorer classes felt that undue advantage 
has been taken of their misfortunes. Following the long fast so faithfully observed in 
the Russian national church, which was broken by holy week and its usual excesses 
in drinking, it has been easy to work upon the passions and prejudices of the hungry 
and ignorant. It is a.sserted also that the nihilist societies have profited by the situ- 
ation to incite and encourage the peasants and lower classes in the towns and cities in 
order to increase the embarrassment of the Government, but the charge is probably 
conjectural and not based on very tangible facts. Certain it is, however, that the 
disorders have developed a state of discontent and lawlessness in the country that is 
by no means agreeable to the Government. It is believed that the Emperor has no 
sympathy with the spirit manifested against the Jews, and in addition to the active 
use of the imperial army to put down the riots, he has given orders to have an investi- 
gation made of the causes which have occasioned the disturbances. I have in previous 
dispatches referred to the proscriptive laws and disabilities imposed upon the Jews in 
Russia, If these events lead to a serious consideration of the wisdom of abolishing all 
the Jewish disabilities and of placing Russian legislation on this subject alongside that 
of other enlightened nations, the loss of life and property will not have been in vain. 

It may not be without interest to mention that these disturbances and the Russian 
laws affecting foreign Jews have twice during the past week been the subject of dis- 
cussion in the British Parliament. As reference was made in that discussion to the 
action of our Government and this legation regarding the Russian laws prohibiting 
foreign Jews to reside in St. Petersburg, I send you herewith that portion of the par- 
liamentary report. It will be noticed that two questions were presented to the 
House of Commons: First, as to the propriety of the British Government making 
representations to that of Russia with regard to the atrocities committed upon the 
Jewish population in southern Russia, and, second, as to the action of the British 
Government on account of the expulsion from St. Petersburg of a highly respected 
London merchant having a British passport on the ground that he was a Jew. To 
the first question the under secretary for foreign affairs indicated that his Govern- 
ment was reluctant to make any representations in regard to the persecutions, and, 
as to the second subject, a protest has been made against the expulsion of the British 
subject, but without avail. 

This discussion in Parliament has occasioned an editorial in the St. Petersburg 
Journal, the semiofficial organ of the Russian foreign office, of which I send you a 
translation. This article asserts that the disturbances being of a purely domestic 
character, the British Cabinet would have no more right to address the Russian Gov- 
ernment representations thereon than the latter would have to address Lord Gran- 
ville on account of the agrarian crimes in Ireland. In reference to the expulsion it 
maintains that if made according to the Russian law a protest was not proper; and, 
on the other hand, if in violation of that law a protest was unnecessary, because the 
above would have been corrected. 

In this connection I have to report that no new case has arisen of the enforcement 
against American citizens of the law in question. 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1019.) 



SKETCH OP THE LAWS OP RUSSIA RELATIVE TO FOREIGN JEWS. 

Israelites in general are in Russia subject to a special legislation. 

There is found in the Code of Laws a series of provisions in the proper place, spread 
over many chapters, and divers published regulations on commerce, industry, and the 
trades, devoting to them special clauses. 

Foreign Israelites do not escape this legislation, which defines the laws applied to 
them relative to their admission into the territory of the Empire and to their sojourn in 
Russia. 

The localities, the limits of which are accorded to Israelites subjects of the Empire, 
in order to sojourn in a permanent manner, are as follows: 

The Governments (or Provinces) of Bessarabia, Vilna, Vitebsk, Volhynia, Grodno, 
Ekaterinoslav, Taurida, Kershow, Tchernigof, Kowno, Minsk, Mohilef, Poltava, 
Podolia, and Kief, with the exception of the city of Kief, but upon the observance of 
the following rules: In the Governments of Vitebsk and Mohilef the Israelites have the 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 127 

right to reside in the inhabited localities, in virtue of proper tickets of sojourn which 
are given to them for this purpose, without, nevertheless, having the right to definitely 
establish themselves there in the quality of fixed inhabitants. With respect to the 
city of Nicolaief, they have a right to choose a domicile there and to acquire real 
estate, in conformity to the special provisions of the regulations of commerce. 
Second. Regarding the western Governments adjoining the frontier and Bessarabia the 
Israelites are not authorized to establish themselves within a distance of 50 versts from 
the frontier of the State. Along the western fit-ontier of the State the Israelites guilty of 
contraband are, in addition to the other penalties, condemned to vacate the above- 
cited limits. (See arts. 12 and 23 of the regulations on passports, sequel to the Code of 
Laws, ed. of 1876.) 

A general statute law that foreign Israelites are not authorized to immigrate to Russia, 
nor to receive Russian naturalization. (See art. 992 of the regulations on social condi- 
tions. Code of Laws, Vol. IX, ed. 1876.) 

Nevertheless, article 530 of the regulations on passports (Code of Laws, ed. 1857), 
in admitting certain exceptions to the preceding laws, particularizes who are those 
among foreign Israelites who are authorized to establish themselves within the limits 
of the localities where the right of domicile is accorded to all Jews in general. 

1. Those whom the Imperial Government invites to come to Russia to exercise the 
functions of rabbis. 

2. Those who come to Russia with the object of creating manufactories and work- 
shops (with the exception of distillers), and who can show a capital for this purpose of 
at least 15,000 rubles. The individuals at their entry into Russia must engage, in 
writing, to create said establishments within a period of three years. In case where 
they shall be found not to have complied with the terms of their engagement they 
shall be expelled from the Empire. On the contrary, in case they shall have fulfilled 
it they have the right to become Russian subjects and shall select a legal status. 

Artisans called to Russia by the Israelite manufacturers to engage in manufacturing 
labor in their factories. These artisans shall not be permitted to enter Russia except 
upon presentation (a) of a passport in order (2) of a certificate from the imperial legation 
or consulate in Russia certifying to their condition, the character of their former 
occupations, the trade which they follow, and showing that they have been really 
called to Russia, by whom, and with what object. After a sojourn of five years in the 
factories, and upon presentation of a certificate fz-om their employers and the local 
authorities attesting to their skill and irreproachable conduct, they shall be permitted 
to establish themselves permanently in the localities of domicile acquired for Israelites 
and to become Russian subjects. 

Foreign Israelites, arriving in the localities where the fixed sojourn is authorized for 
all Israelites in general, shall be put in possession of passports, in which it shall be 
stated that they are only of value within the limits of the localities above mentioned. 
(See art. 8 and the annexes to art. 486, remark 2, of the regulations on passports, sequel 
to Code of Laws, ed. 1876.) 

The local authorities are required to watch rigorous that foreign Israelites do not 
reside under the names of Christians in the localities where their sojourn is prohibited. 
The individuals discovered to be in this situation will be immediately expelled from 
Russia. (See art. 531 of the regulations on passports, etc.) 

Foreign Israelites, and especially those who are agents of large commercial houses 
abroad, are permitted to visit the great commercial and manufacturing centers of 
Russia, and to reside there a period of time, the fixing of which is submitted to the 
proper authority. 

It pertains to the department of the interior to definitely decide on the petitions 
presented for this object by the said Israelites. Nevertheless, the imperial legations 
and consulates may, without previous authorization of the department of the interior, 
deliver to bankers and chiefs of important commercial houses abroad passports to 
enter Russia and vis6 these passports, reserving notification to the department of the 
interior of the delivery or vise of passport to each one of the individuals. (See art. 
2 of the annexes to art. 486 of the regulations on passports, etc.) 

Israelites, foreign subjects known for their social position and large ojDerations or 
commercial enterprises, are permitted, as a result of a 8j)ecial understanding in each 
case between the ministers of finance and of the interior and of foreign affairs, to 
establish a business within the limits of the Empire, and to open banking oflSces by 
providing themselves, nevertheless, with certificates of merchants of the first guild. 
They are likewise authorized to establish manufactories and acquire and lease real estate 
freely upon the basis of the provisions decreed by the regulations on social conditions. 

Foreign Israelites whose high social position and commercial operations are of 
public notoriety, and who come to Russia with the object of purchasing products of 

19831—11 9 



128 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

the Empire and exporting them abroad, can also, as a result of special understanding 
in eacli case between the ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs, 
obtain certificates of merchants of the first guild. (See pt. 5 of the remark to the third 
annex to art. 128 of the regulations on commerce, ed. 1876, with a complement: 
Decision of the committee of ministers, Dec. 26, 1877.) 

Israelites who may acquire by inheritance real estate situated beyond the locali- 
ties where their sojourn is authorized, are required to sell it within a period of six 
months. This law applies also to foreign Israelites who may acquire real estate in 
Russia by right of inheritance. (See art. 960 on the regulations of social conditions. 
Code of Laws, ed. 1876.) 

The following provisions have been decreed for the Israelite subjects of the Empire 
and are applicable to foreign Israelite subjects in so far only as the latter are found to 
have satisfied the requirements of the above-cited laws. 

Merchants of the first guild inscribed upon the general basis in the first guild of the 
cities may go there with the members of their families whose names are found upon 
the guild certificates. 

Israelite merchants who, in virtue of the preceding provisions, remove to the cities 
of the Empire situated beyond the limits of the localities of their authorized domicile, 
are permitted to bring with them clerks and servants, likewise Israelites, in limited 
number, by observing the foil wing rules: First. Israelite merchants who remove to 
one of the two capitals, St. Petersburg or Moscow, are required to state in a special 
petition presented to them by the governor general or the prefect of the place, the 
number of clerks or servants which they judge indispensable to bring with them to 
said capitals, and upon what consideration this number is based . The granting of these 
petitions is left to the judgment of the governor general and the prefect above cited. 
Second. Israelite merchants who are inscribed in the guilds of other cities are author- 
ized to bring with them, at the most, one clerk or one office boy and four servants of the 
two sexes of their race per family of Israelite merchant. (See annex 3 to art. 128 of 
the regulations on commerce, sequel to the Code of Laws, ed. 1876.) 

Israelite merchants of the first guild, besides the general rights of commerce, which 
belong to them within the limits of the localities of their authorized sojourn, enjoy 
the following special rights: 

First. They have the right to bring in bulk from the capitals and ports, in order 
to effect sales within the limits of the authorized districts, all kinds of merchandise, 
through the medium of commercial offices and local merchants, or by correspondence. 

Second. They are permitted to visit twice a year the capitals and other cities for 
the purposes of making sales there of merchandise, on condition that the period of 
their sojourn does not exceed six months per year. In case there shall be an imped- 
iment or impossibility on account of sickness or some other cause to their going in 
person for the above-mentioned object to the interior of the Empire, they will be 
authorized to send in their stead clerks provided with the proper authorization, 
always computing the period cited. An Israelite clerk who has already visited the 
provinces twice in one year, by virtue of an authorization of a merchant, can not 
go there a third time in the course of the same year. It shall be the same if, having 
gone to said provinces once for one merchant, he held the authorization of another 
merchant. He shall, in this case, not be authorized to make more than a single 
journey in the course of this same year. 

Third. Israelite merchants of the first guild are authorized to undertake enter- 
prises in the government of the interior, but on the condition that they do not employ 
m any case Israelites as agents or superintendents. 

Fourth. Israelite merchants of the first guild are permitted to carry on in the cap- 
itals and ports wholesale trade in the products of authorized Governments by means 
of Christian clerks or of merchants of the place or by direct correspondence with 
the manufacturers. But they are forbidden to make sale in person of said products 
in the capitals or ports of the Empire, or to open shops, under penalty of immediate 
expulsion and confiscation of merchandise. 

Fifth. They shall not be authorized, neither personally nor by means of Christian 
agents, to sell merchandise which they may have imported from abroad outside of 
the limits of the Governments of their authorized fixed sojourn. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1023.) 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 129 



Mr. Blaine to Mr. Foster. 
[Extract.] 



Sir: 



Department op State, 

Washington, July 29, 1881. 



From a careful examination of the cases of grievance heretofore reported by your 
legation, it appears that the action of the Russian authorities toward American citi- 
zens alleged to be Israelites and visiting Russia has been of two kinds. 

First. Absolute prohibition of residence in St. Petersburg and in other cities of the 
Empire, on the ground that the Russian law permits no native Jews to reside there 
and that the treaty between Russia and the United States gives to our citizens in 
Russian jurisdiction no other rights or privileges than those accorded to native Rus- 
sians. The case of Henry Pinkos may be taken as a type of this class. 

Second. Permission of residence and commerce, conditionally on belonging to the 
first guild of Russian merchants and taking out a license. The case of Rosenstrauss 
is in point. 

The apparent contradiction between these two classes of actions becomes more and 
more evident as the question is traced backward. The department has rarely had 

Presented to it any subject of inquiry in which a connected understanding of the facts 
as proved more difficult. For every allegation, on the one hand, that native laws 
in force at the time the treaty of 1832 was signed prohibited or limited the sojourn of 
foreign Jews in the cities of Russia I find, on the other hand, special invitation to 
alien Hebrews of good repute to domicile themselves in Russia, to pursue their business 
calling under appropriate license, to establish factories there, and to purchase and 
lease real estate. Moreover, going back beyond 1832, the date of our treaty, I observe 
that the imperial ukases concerning the admission of foreigners into Russia are silent 
on all questions of faith, proper passports duly visaed being the essential requisite. 
And further back still, in the time of the Empress Catherine, I discover explicit 
tolerance of all foreign religions laid down as a fundamental policy of the Empire. 

Before examining the issues directly before us it may not be out of place to give a 
brief review of these historical data. 

The ukase of the Empress Catherine of February 22, 1784, although concerning 
only the establishment of commercial relations with the new possessions of Russia 
on the Black Sea, contains the following notable declaration: 

"That Sebastopol, Kharson, and Theodocia be opened to all the nations friendly 
to our Empire for the advantage of their commerce with our faithful subjects ; * * * 
that the said nations may come to these cities in all safety and freedom. * * * Each 
individual of such nation, whomsoever he may be, as long as he shall remain in the 
said cities by reason of his business or of his own pleasure shall enjoy the free exer- 
cise of his religion, according to the praiseworthy precepts handed down to us by the 
sovereigns, our predecessors, and which we have again received and confirmed, 
"that all the various nationalities established in Russia shall praise God, the All 
Powerful, each one after the worship and religion of his ancestors," * * * and 
we promise, upon our imperial word, to accord to all foreigners in these three cities 
the same advantages which they already enjoy in our capital and seaport, St. Peters- 
burg, etc." 

The full text of this ukase, which breathes a spirit of large and enlightened toler- 
ance in advance of the policy of those days, is well worthy of perusal and may be 
consulted in vol. 4 of Marten's Recueil des Traites, first edition, Gottingen, 1795, 
pages 455-457. 

The imperial ordinance of the Czar Alexander I of 13th August, 1807, decrees a 
rigid system of passports for foreigners entering Russia and is applicable to "all 
foreigners, of whatsoever nationality," but intimates no restriction on travel or sojourn 
in Russia by reason of race or faith. This ordinance was modified and amplified b y 
the ukase of 25th February, 1817, but still without any manner of religious prescription 
or restriction. 

From this time down to 1860 I can find no trace of the enforcement, especially 
against American citizens, of the restrictions against Jewish travel and residence 
which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia was signed. It is a 
significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on private international 
law, writing diu-ing this period upon the legislation of all Europe as affecting the 
rights of persons and aliens, make no reference to such disabilities. Even the pains- 
taking Foelix is silent on this point, although devoting much space to the treatment 
and rights of aliens in Russia. I do not desire to be here understood as arguing tha t 



130 TEEMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

the asserted disabilities did not exist at that time. The domestic history of the 
Russian Empire shows plainly the restrictions placed upon the native Hebrews, and 
especially those of Polish origin, the efforts to confine them to certain parts of the 
Empire, and the penalties sought to be imposed to deter them from mingling with 
the Christian subjects of the Czar. But the same history shows the gradual relaxation 
of these measures, until, in the capital itself, the native Israelite population is said 
to number *ome 30,000 souls, with their synagogues and sectarian schools, while a 
special ukase of the late Czar distinctly recognizes to foreign Hebrews every privilege 
of residence and trade in a certain guild which native Christian subjects possess. 

The ukase of the Emperor Alexander II of 7th June, 1860, after premising that the 
need of commercial development and the principles of international reciprocity make 
it proper to concede "to foreigners dwelling in Russia the same rights as those which 
our subjects enjoy already in the principal countries of Europe, " proceeds to permit 
all aliens to enter any of the trading guilds on the same footing as natives and to there- 
upon enjoy all the commercial privileges which these guilds confer upon native 
Russian traders, with the following qualification: 

"First remark. — Foreign Hebrew subjects known by reason of their social position and 
the wide extent of their commercial operations, who come from foreign lands, may, 
after the established formalities — that is to say, upon a special authorization, issued m 
each case by the ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs — trade in the 
Empire and establish banking houses therein, upon procuring the license of a merchant 
of the first guild. It is likewise permitted to these same Israelites to establish facto- 
ries, to acquire and to lease real estate conformably to the prescriptions of the present 
ukase." 

This provision, it will be observed, extends to the whole territory of the empire. If, 
as I understood the response of the Russian m-inistry in the case of Henry Pinkos, 
native Israelites are forbidden by law from residing or trading in the capital, then this 
ukase places all foreign Jews (whether belonging to treaty powers or not) on a more 
favored footing. But if native Hebrews, as a fact, are permitted to reside in St. Peters- 
burg and engage in trade in other guilds than the so-called "first guild," there may 
then well be question whether such restriction to a particular guild in the case of an 
American Israelite is consonant with the express opinions of the treaty of 1832, article 
1. This point was in fact raised in the case of Theodore Rosenstrauss at Kharkoff, 
which is narrated at length, with all the correspondence therein exchanged, in Mr. 
Jewell's dispatch No. 20, of December 15, 1873; but it does not seem to have been then 
exhaustively considered whether the complainant received, under the treaty, the like 
treatment with the native Hebrews of Kharkoff, or whether he was constrained to obey 
the ukase of 1860, which, as I have above remarked, is framed for general application 
to all aliens irrespective of treaty rights. It is not, however, my present purpose to 
reargue this old case, but simply to call attention to the fact that the Russian law may, 
and possibly does, modify and restrict treaty rights. The Rosenstrauss case was 
special in its nature, and concerned commercial privileges under a promulgated license 
law of the empire. It may be necessary, at some future time, to discuss the question it 
involves, but just now I am concerned with a different class of cases, namely, those of 
American citizens visiting Russia for private business or for pleasure and travel and 
duly provided with the passports of this Government authenticating their national 
character and their consequent right to all the specific guaranties of our treaty. 

This brings me again to the cases of Pinkos and Wilczynski. It is unnecessary 
here to recapitulate the facts therein, as they are amply presented by the files of your 
legation and by the correspondence had with the Russian foreign office. It is suffi- 
cient to characterize them as instances of the notified expulsion from St. Petersburg, 
by the police or military authorities, of American citizens, not because of any alleged 
failure to comply with the ukase of 1860, or with the Russian commercial code, but 
simply on the allegation, unsupported by proof, that they professed the Israelitish 
faith, and that the law forbade the sojourn of native Israelites in the imperial capital. 
On this brief formulation of the case this Government believes that, under its treaty 
with Russia, and in view of its treatment of Russian subjects resorting under like 
circumstances to the United States, it has just ground for complaint and expectancy 
of better treatment from the Government of Russia. 

The provisions of our treaty of 1832 with Russia, governing the commercial privi- 
leges of the citizens and subjects of the two countries, is as follows: 

"Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties 
a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. 

"The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty to enter 
the ports, places, and rivers of each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. 
They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, 
in order to attend to their affairs; and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security 



TERMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 131 

and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside in all parts whatsoever 
of the said territories, in order to attend to their affairs; and they shall enjoy to that 
effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, 
on condition of submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particu- 
larly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." 

Article X confers specific personal rights reciprocally. In respect of this article an 
infringement alike of the letter and the spirit of the treaty is not only possible but 
probable, under the rigid interpretation of the Jewish laws, upon which Russia seems 
disposed to insist. Its stipulations concern the right to dispose of personal property 
owned by or falling to American citizens, who may receive and dispose of inherit- 
ances and have recourse to the courts in settlement of cases arising thereunder. It 
certainly could not be seriously claimed or justly admitted that an American Hebrew, 
coming within the provisions of this article, is to be treated as a candidate for com- 
mercial privileges and required to take out a license as a trader of the first guild, 
subject to the approval of his application by the ministries of finance, interior, and 
foreign affairs. A personal right, not a mercantile privilege, is conferred. To bar an 
American citizen whose rights may be so concerned, from personal appearance in 
protection of those rights, would be a distinct departure from the engagement of the 
treaty, while to suppose that his case might come under the discretional authority of 
the police or military power, which might refuse his sojourn in any part of the Em- 
pire, or allow it under conditions pending their good will, is to suppose a submission 
of the guarantees of the treaty to a tribunal never contemplated by its framers. 

Upon a case arising, this Government would hold that the treaty conferred specific 
rights on all American citizens in the matter of the disposition of their personal prop- 
erty, irrespective of any condition save those which the article itself expressly creates; 
that their actual presence when necessary to protect or assert their interests, is abso- 
lutely guaranteed whenever and for whatever time it may be needful; and that this 
international engagement supersedes any municipal rule or regulation which might 
interfere with the free action of such individuals. 

It would be, in the judgment of this Government, absolutely inadmissible that a 
domestic law restraining native Hebrews from residence in certain parts of the Empire 
might operate to hinder an American citizen, whether alleged or known to profess the 
Hebrew faith, from disposing of his property or taking possession thereof for himself 
(subject only to the laws of alien inheritance) or being heard in person by the courts, 
which under Russian law may be called upon to decide matters to which he is 
necessarily a party. The case would clearly be one in which the obligation of a 
treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions of the con- 
flict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among the most common 
which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it is their concurrent judgment 
that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms it can not be limited 
by the operations of domestic law without a serious breach of the good faith which 
governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional engagement in 
favor of the citizens in another State exists, the law governing natives in like cases is 
manifestly inapplicable. 

I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United States con- 
cludes its treaties with foreign States for the equal protection of all classes of American 
citizens. It can make absolutely no discrimination between them, whatever be their 
origin or creed. So that they abide by the laws at home or abroad it must give them 
due protection and expect like protection for them. Any unfriendly or discrimina- 
tory act against them on the part of a foreign power with which we are at peace would 
call for our earnest remonstrance, whether a treaty existed or not. The friendliness 
of our relations with foreign nations is emphasized by the treaties we have concluded 
with them. We have been moved to enter into international compacts by considera- 
tions of mutual benefit and reciprocity, by the same considerations, in short, which 
have animated the Russian Government from the time of the noble and tolerant 
declarations of the Empress Catherine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have 
looked to the spirit rather than to the letter of those engagements, and believe that 
they should be interpreted in the broadest way; and it is therefore a source of unfeigned 
regret to us when a Government, to which we are allied by so many historical ties as 
to that of Russia, shows a disposition in its dealings with us to take advantage of tech- 
nicalities, to appeal to the rigid letter and not to the reciprocal motive of its interna- 
tional engagements in justification of. the expulsion from its territories of peaceable 
American citizens resorting thither under the good faith of treaties and accused of no 
wrongdoing or of no violation of the commercial code of the land, but of the simple 
adherence to the faith of their fathers. 

That the two American citizens whose unfortunate cases have brought about this 
discussion were not definitely expelled fi'om St. Petersburg, but were allotted by 



132 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 

the military autliorities a brief time to arrange their private affairs, said to coincide 
with the usual time during which any foreigner may remain in the Empire under hia 
original passport, does not alter the matter as it appears to our eyes. The motive alleged 
remains the same, and the principle involved is one recognized neither by our funda- 
mental laws nor by any of the conventions we have concluded with foreign States. 

It must not be forgotten that this issue, of the banishment of our citizens from a 
friendly territory by reason of their alleged religion, is a new one in our international 
relations. From the time when the treaty of 1832 was signed down to within a ver> 
recent period there has been nothing in our relations with Russia to lead to a suppo- 
sition that our flag did not carry with it equal protection to every American within the 
dominions of the Empire. Even in questions of citizenship affecting the interests 
of naturalized citizens of Russian origin the good disposition of the Imperial Govern- 
ment has been on several occasions shown in a most exemplary manner, and I am sure 
the actual counselors of His Majesty can not but contemplate with satisfaction the 
near approach made in 1874 to the arrangement of negotiations for a treaty of naturali- 
zation between the two countries. On that occasion it will be seen by consulting Mr. 
Jewell's No. 62 of April 22, 1874, the only remaining obstacle lay in the statutes of the 
Empire touching the conferment and the loss of citizenship, of which the examining 
commission and the consultative council of state recommended the modification in a 
sense compatible with the modern usage of nations. 

I can readily conceive that statutes bristling with difficulties remain unrepealed in 
the volumes of the law of Russia as well as of other nations. Even we ourselves have 
our obsolete "blue laws," and their literal enforcement, if such a thing were possible, 
might to-day subject a Russian of free-thinking proclivities, in Maryland or Delaware, 
to the penalty of having has tongue bored through with a red-hot iron for blasphemy. 
Happily the spirit of progress is of higher authority than the letter of outworn laws, 
and statutory enactments are not ao inelastic but that they relax and change with the 
general advancement of peoples in the path of tolerance. 

The simple fact that thousands of Israelites to-day pinsue their callings unmo- 
lested in St. Petersburg, under the shadow of ancient prescriptive laws, is in itself an 
eloquent testimony to the spirit of progress. And so, too, in Spain, where the per- 
secution and expulsion of Jews is one of the most notable and deplorable facts in 
history, and where the edicts of the earlier sovereigns remain unrepealed, we see 
to-day an offer of protection and assured right of domicile made to Israelites of every 
race. 

I leave out of consideration in the present instruction the question whether the 
citizens or subjects of other nations are more or less favored than our own in this 
regard. I have not, however, failed to notice the statement made to you by Mr. de 
Giers, in one of yoiu reported conversations with him, that German and Austrian Jews 
are subjected to the proscriptions in question, and that the implications therefrom 
that if the Governments of Germany and Austria do not complain, there is no reason 
why we should. 

It is not for me to examine or conjecture the reciprocal motives of policy or of 
international convention which may govern in these instances. Neither have I 
failed to remark the seeming uncertainty with which the British Government has 
approached the case of the English Israelite, Mr. Lewisohn, who was recently required 
to quit St. Petersbm-g, notwithstanding that the personal guaranties of the Anglo- 
Russian treaty of January 12, 1859, in its eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles, 
are more particular than in our own treaty, and were presumably, like oiu own stipu- 
lations, framed with the intent of securing impartial rights and protection in Russia. 
I am perfectly willing to rest my argument on the moral weight of our treaty of 1832, 
although, of course, not averse to availing myself of any support which may come 
from any other quarter to fortify what we conceive to have been our clear pm-pose in 
executing that instrument. And under no circumstances would I in the name of 
this Government be willing to accept a less measure of impartial privilege for a citizen 
of the United States visiting or sojourning in Russian territory than is assured to aliens 
in the like case by any stipulation with or usage toward any other nation on the part 
of Russia. 

I had the honor in my letter of the 20th ultimo to Mr. Bartholomei to acquaint him 
with the general views of the President in relation to this matter. 

I can not better bring this instruction to a close than by repeating and amplifying 
those views which the President so firmly holds, and which he so anxiously desires to 
have recognized and responded to by the Russian Government. 

He conceives that the intention of the United States in negotiating the treaty of 
December 18, 1832, and the distinct and enlightened reciprocal engagements then 
entered into with the Government of Russia, gives us moral ground to expect careful 
attention to our opinions as to its rational interpretation in the broadest and most 



TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 133 

impartial sense; that he would deeply regret, in view of the gratifying friendliness of 
the relations of the two countries which he is so desirous to maintain, to find that this 
large national sentiment fails to control the present issue, or that a narrow and rigid 
limitation of the construction possible to the treaty stipulation between the two 
countries is likely to be adhered to; and if, after a frank comparison of the views of 
the two Governments, in the most amicable spirit and with the most earnest desire to 
reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, the treaty stipulations between the United 
States and Russia are found insufficient to determine questions of nationality and 
tolerance of individual faith, or to secure to American citizens in Russia the treatment 
which Russians receive in the United States, it is simply due to the good relations of 
the two countries that the stipulations should be made sufficient in these regards; 
and we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will which Russia professes toward 
us than a frank declaration of her readiness to come to a distinct agreement with us on 
these points in an earnest and generous spirit. 

I have observed that in your conferences on this subject heretofore with the min- 
ister of foreign affairs, as reported in your dispatches, you have on some occasions 
given discreet expression to the feelings of sympathy and gratification with which 
this Government and people regard any steps taken in foreign countries in the diree- 
tion of a liberal tolerance analogous to that which forms the fundamental principle 
of our national existence. Such expressions were natural on your part and reflected 
a sentiment which we all feel. But in making the President's views known to the 
minister I desire that you will carefully subordinate such sentiments to the simple 
consideration of what is conscientiously believed to be due to our citizens in foreign 
lands. You will distinctly impress upon him that, regardful of the sovereignty of 
Russia, we do not submit any suggestions touching the laws and customs of the Empire 
except where those laws and customs conflict with and destroy the rights of American 
citizens as assured by treaty obligations. 

You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia nor accept 
any construction of our existing treaty which shall discriminate against any class of 
American citizens on account of their religious faith. 

I can not but feel assured that this earnest presentation of the views of this Gov- 
ernment will accord with the sense of justice and equity of that of Russia and that 
the questions at issue will soon find their natural solution in harmony with the noble 
spirit of tolerance which pervaded the ukase of the Empress Catherine a century ago, 
and with the statesman-like declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the 
late decree of the Czar Alexander II in 1860. 

You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and should he desire 
a copy you will give it to him. 

James G. Blaine, 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1030.) 



Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 29, 1881. 

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, having prepared a copy of your dispatch, 
No. 87, upon the subject of the United States Jews in Russia, I to-day called upon Mr. 
de Giers. 

I told him the object of my visit and offered to read your dispatch. He requested 
me not to do so, as he was very much occupied, and several persons waiting to see him, 
but asked me to leave him a copy, which he promised to have carefully considered. 

I said to him that your dispatch related to citizens of the United S tates alone ; that you 
did not touch upon the question of Russian Jews; and that as regards citizens of the 
United States you placed yourself principally and strongly upon the treaty of 1832. 
That under the treaty every citizen of the United States, without distinction of creed, 
had the right to go where he pleased, and stay as long as pleased in the Empire. He 
replied that he regarded the words "on condition of their submitting to the laws and 
ordinances there prevaUtng" as qualifying this right, and subjecting American 
Israelites to the laws which govern Russian Israelites. I assured him that it appeared 
to nie that those words referred rather to laws or morals and police "ordinances " ia the 
ordinary acceptation of that term. I added, that in the case of Russian Jews very 
many exceptions were made to their laws (referring to the large number of Russian 
Jews permitted to reside in St. Petersburg contrary to the law). He admitted that 
there were many such exceptions, and added that exceptions were made and would ]3e 
freely made in the case of foreign Jews also. I had only to apply in any particular 



134 TERMINATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

case, and he had no doubt an exception would be made; your dispatch should be care- 
fully considered, and in a week or two he would answer it verbally or in writing as I 
preferred. He added that the answer would probably be the same as that given to the 
English. 

The answer given to the English, I understood to be, that the treaty does not give an 
English Israelite the right to go anywhere, or stay any length of time in Russia, but 
that he is bound by the regulations which govern native Jews; but that in the case of 
Mr. Lewisohn an exception is made on the request of the British embassy, and he can 
return here if he desires to do so. I do not speak with certainty, but I learn in well- 
informed quarters that this is the decision. 

I am, etc., Wickham Hoffmann. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1036.) 



Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 8, 1881. 

Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 87 and to my No. 150 in reply, I have the 
honor to inform you that I called yesterday upon Mr. de Giers in reference to the ques- 
tion of the United States Jews in Russia. Mr. de Giers stated that he had read your 
dispatch with interest; that the question had two sides — its legal and moral sides; 
that in reference to the former, he still maintained the view he had already intimated 
to me, viz, that in the treaty of 1832 the words "on condition of then* submitting to 
the laws and ordinances there prevailing" were controlling, and subjected American 
Jews to the treatment of native Jews. He added that he had given an analogous 
answer to the representatives of other powers. 

As regards the moral side of the question he, personally, would be glad to see im- 
portant modifications made in the laws regulating the condition of Jews in Russia, 
but that they had brought much of the harshness of these laws upon themselves. A 
commission had, however, been appointed to examine and report upon the whole 
Jewish question, under the presidency of the minister of the interior; that the commis- 
sion would meet this autumn, and that he had already transmitted your dispatch to that 
officer, to be submitted to the commission. 

Wickham Hoffmann. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1037.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 14, 1881. 

Sir: After considerable delay I am at last enabled to send you herewith an abstract 
or sketch of the laws of Russia relative to foreign Jews. As I heretofore noted, the 
laws on this subject are contained in a voluminous mass of legislation, regulations, 
decisions of ministries, etc., many of which conflict with each other, and it has been 
found very difficult to know with accuracy what is the existing law applicable to 
a particular case. The accompanying abstract is believed to be * * * as full as 
I can make it without the employment of an experienced native attorney, and having 
in view some special question. 

As introductory to a notice of the inclosed abstract, it is proper to state that from 
early times Jews were prohibited from coming to or settling in Russia; but, by means 
of the conquest of Poland, the Crimea, and certain other districts, a large number 
of Jews became incorporated as subjects of the Empire, and it was thus made neces- 
sary to so modify the ancient general prohibition as to allow Israelites who had become 
Russian subjects by annexation of territory to reside in the western and southwestern 
provinces named in the inclosed abstract. And up to the present no other part 
of the Empire has been opened to Jewish Russian subjects for unrestricted habitation, 
80 that, as a rule, even Russian Jews are confined to the provinces cited; and the 
ancient law prohibiting the entrance into Russia of foreign Israelites is still in force, 
with the very limited exceptions cited in the accompanying sketch. These excep- 
tions may be briefly stated as follows: 

1. Certain foreign Jews may come into the governments or provinces of west and 
southwest Russia named, to wit: First, rabbis invited by the Russian Government 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 135 

to exercise their profession; second, manufacturers with a capital of 15,000 rubles, 
by special aiTangement; and, third, artisans brought by said manufacturers upon 
certain specific conditions. 

II. All other parts of Russia are closed to foreign Israelites, wiMi the limited excep- 
tions of, first, the agents of large commercial houses abroad, who are permitted to 
visit, for a limited period, the great commercial and manufacturing centers of Russia, 
upon their petition to that effect, presented to the department of the interior, being 
granted; and, second, well-known bankers and chiefs of large commercial houses or 
enterprises coming to Russia to purchase and export native products may be admitted 
as merchants of the first guild, as the result of a special joint understanding with the 
ministers of the interior, and finance, and of foreign affairs; but, even after being ad- 
mitted as members of the merchants' guild, they have only specified and restricted 
privileges. 

It will thus be seen that Jewish citizens of the United States are virtually excluded 
from Russia, as few, if any, of them would be willing to comply with the requirements 
necessary for their admission under Russian laws. This code of Jewish regulations, 
of which some idea may be formed from the inclosed sketch, will appear somewhat 
curious and antiquated in our country of unrestricted commercial intercourse, and 
especially the limitations, not only of a business, but even of a domestic character, 
which are thrown around the Jewish bankers and merchants (to use the language of 
the law) "known for their high social position and large operations and commercial 
enterprises." 

I also transmit herewith a memorandum showing the provisions bearing upon the 
question of the treaties of commerce existing between Russia and Great Britain, 
Austria, and France. 

The other European nations have treaties similar to that of Great Britain, with the 
exception of Germany, which, singularly enough, has no treaty of commerce with 
Russia. A comparison with the treaty of commerce which the United States has 
with Russia will show that the only material variance is in the last paragraph of Article 
I of the British treaty (and a similar provision is found in the treaties of most of the 
European nations with Russia), wherein it is more explicitly provided that in the 
treaty with the United States that the privileges therein granted "in nowise affect 
the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce, industry, and the police 
in vigor in each of the two countries." The Austrian treaty is still more precise in 
adding to the foregoing reservation a recognition "that the restrictions established in 
the states of one of the high contracting parties shall be equally applicable to the 
subjects of the other belonging to the same confession." It may, therefore, be con- 
cluded that our treaty is fully as favorable to our citizens as that of any other nation 
with Russia. 

As the case of the British subject Lewinsohn, now pending and the occasion of 
some inquiry in Parliament, has been heretofore referred to, I inclose a statement of 
the facts relating thereto, which is doubtless substantially correct. It may be noted 
that while Lewinsohn was refused permission to revisit St. Petersburg, the American 
citizen, Mr. Wilczynski, who was expelled about the same time, was, upon applica- 
tion of this legation, given permission to return. 

I am, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 1022.) 



Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Extract.] 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, January 9, 1882. 

Sir: Referring to the correspondence between the department and this legation 
upon the subject of American Jews in Russia, I have the honor to report the follow- 
ing curious case: 

About three weeks ago I was called upon by a man of the name of James G. Moses, 
who produced his United States passport and stated that he was a Jew ; that he was 
employed in the Ceniselli circus in this city as stable director; and that he had been 
ordered out of the city as a Jew. He added that he was not "one of those Talmud 
Jews"; that be belonged to the American Reformed Church, known in Russia as the 
Karaim Jews. 

* * * J asked the consul general, who is in relations with the municipal author- 
ities, to apply to Gen. Kosloff, prefect of police, on Mr. Moses's behalf. 



136 TERMIITATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 

Ab soon as Gen. Kosloff understood tliat Moses was a Karaim Jew lie told tlie conBul 
general to send the man to him the next morning, accompanied by his employer. 

The next morning they went accordingly, and the result of the interview was that 
Mr. Moses was informed that Gen. Kosloff would recommend that permission be given 
. him to remain and in the meantime to give himself no uneasiness. I understand that 
he has since received the necessary permission. 

It appears that the Karaim or Reformed Jews are of a superior class and have never 
caused the Russian Government any trouble or been found enrolled among the 
Nihilists. 

Mr. Moses is a resident of New York, bom in Germany, but taken to the United 
States when a young child. 

I am, sir, etc., ^ Wickham Hoffmann. 

(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 444.) 



Mr. Hoffmann to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, February U, 1882. 
Sir: At my request Mr. Rawicz, United States consul at Warsaw, has prepared for 
me a brief account of the late anti-Jewish riots in that city. Mr. Rawicz is a banker 
and a gentleman of intelligence and experience, and I have much confidence in the 
soundness of his judgment and the accuracy of his statements. 
I am, sir, etc., 

Wickham Hoffmann. 
(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 446.) 



Mr. Rawicz to Mr. Hoffunann. 

Consulate of the United States, 

Warsaw, February 1, 1882. 

A BRIEF account OF THE LAST RIOTS AT WARSAW. 

In the month of April last, just before the holiday of Corpus Christi, on which^ 
according to the Catholic custom, great religious processions take place all over the 
whole country, there appeared in the streets and workshops of our town, as well as in 
many of the principal manufacturing towns in the whole country, printed proclama- 
tions instigating the Christian population against the Jews. Similar tendencies were 
never heard of here until the anti-Semite riots in Russia, namely, Kieff, Odessa, 
Charkoff, etc., and it is certain they did not spring out on this soil, but were con- 
veyed here from the main source. 

The sober and well-thinking inhabitants succeeded, withthe assistance of the local 
governor general, in influencing the Catholic clergy, who again, on their part, by proper 
sermons, preached from the pulpits all over the country, succeeded in refraining the 
greater part of the lowest class of people in taking part in the riots, and in reality the 
last events were only perpetrated by minor apprentices, people of the lowest rank, 
without any employment, and reprobates, as there were hardly any amidst the whole 
number of the arrested that might be said belonged to the better class of artisans; 
and it is a fact, proved by the investigating judges, that the violent hands laid upon 
the property of others were only those of the rabble, amidst whom appeared leaders 
never seen here before, but that such an event could possibly take place here was not 
supposed even by the greatest pessimists. 

During the divine serAdces on Christmas day in the Holy Cross Church, situated 
in one of the principal streets of this town, about 12 o'clock in the day, when the 
church was overcrowded with the pious, a cry of "fire" was raised,^ as it was after- 
wards ascertained, by pickpockets, one of whom was a Jew; and it is said the same 
cry was simultaneously raised in four other chm-ches. The people began to throng 
in the entrance, and as the church doors are somewhat elevated, to which two flights 
of broad stone steps of 13 steps each are leading, here they began to crowd, fall, and 
trample each other, and here principally the whole catastrophe took place,_ so that 
in the course of a quarter of an hour there were 30 killed and 26 seriously injured, 
who were taken to a hospital cbse by, and some of whom died soon after. The gov- 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 137 

ernor general appeared on the spot in order to exert Ms influence on the excited 
populace, and just at that time voices were heard from amidst the crowd, "It is the 
Jews that caused this disaster; let us have our revenge on the Jews." 

Being a first-rank holiday, only the Jewish shops were half opened, and the rabble 
began to pilfer the Jewish brandy and tobacco shops, as well as their private lodgings, 
principally those belonging to the poorer classes and those situated in the back streets, 
and before the police, gendarmes, and troops could render any real service the rest 
of that day and the whole night passed. On the next day, however, the authorities 
took more energetic steps, and on the third succeeded in putting a final stop, and 
since that time no attempt whatever was made to renew the riots. During these whole 
disturbances there has not occurred either a single case of murder, or violation of 
woman, as the chief object of the rabble was pilfering, which was effected, according 
to official statement, in 1,025 shops, and the total number of families that suffered 
is stated to be 2,011, about 10,000 persons; and the damages caused by these broils, 
according to official statement of the committee appointed for that pmpose, was 
reduced to the amount of 767,339 rubles, as according to private Jewish accounts it 
reached to 1,200,000 rubles, which sum was doubtless greatly exaggerated. 

The number of persons arrested was over 3,000. The exaggeration of these street 
broils in the Times, as well as in many of the other foreign papers, may be principally 
attributed to Jewish propaganda, for the purpose of exciting commiseration, and con- 
sequently augmenting the subscriptions collected everywhere, and which to the pres- 
ent day amount to 146,400 rubles. 

Besides the poorer class of Jewish shopkeepers who sustained considerable losses, 
as many of them lost all they had, it also affected in a great measure many of the house 
proprietors, merchants, manufacturers, brewers, with whom that class of people car- 
ried on business, as on that account the Jews, with few exceptions, do not pay neither 
their rents nor for the goods they had taken. 

It is the general conviction here, and there is not the least doubt in the truth of it, 
that this evil propensity was totally unknown here, but as I already stated above, was 
brought over from the main source, but which, notwithstanding the antipathy toward 
the Jews, fortunately did not take deep root, thanks to the clergy, who since the very 
appearance of the stimulating proclamations, not only in the churches have availed 
themselves of every opportunity to avert the evil, and who now continue their work 
to obliterate the traces of inhuman deeds. 

I am, sir, etc., Joseph Rawicz, United States Consul. 

(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 446.) 



Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Hoffmann. 

Department op State, 

Washington, April 15, 1882. 

Sir: The prejudice of race and creed having in our day given way to the claims 
of common humanity, the people of the United States have heard with great regret 
the stories of the sufferings of the Jews in Russia. It may be that the accounts in 
the newspapers are exaggerated, and the same may be true of some private reports. 
Making, however, due allowance for misrepresentation, it can scarcely be doubted 
that much has been done which a humane and just person must condemn. 

The President, of course, feels that the Government of the Emperor should not be 
held morally responsible for acts which it considers wrong but which it may be 
powerless to prevent. 

If that be true of this case, it would be worse than useless for me to direct you,_ as 
representative of the United States, to give official expression to the feeling which 
the treatment of the Jews calls forth in this country. Should, however, the attitude 
of the Russian Government be different, and should you be of the opinion that a 
more vigorous effort might be put forth for the prevention of this great wrong, you 
will, if a favorable opportxmity offers, state with all proper deference that the feeling 
of friendship which the United States entertains for Russia prompts this Government 
to express the hope that the Imperial Government will find means to cause the per- 
secution of these unfortunate beings to cease. 

This instruction devolves a delicate duty upon you, and a wide discretion is given 
you in its execution. However much this Republic may disajjprove of affairs in 
other nationalities, it does not conceive that it is its right or province officiously and 
offensively to intermeddle. If, however, it should come to yoiu: knowledgethat any 
citizens of the United States are- made victims of this persecution, you will feel it 
your duty to omit no effort to protect them and to report such cases to this department. 

Feedk. T. Frelinghuysen. 

(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 451.) 



138 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Hojffmann to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, April 29, 1882. 

Sir: The anti-Jewish riots have commenced again in the south of Russia. They 
have been marked, as heretofore, by great and wanton destruction of property, but 
by little personal violence. 

The scene of the worst disturbances has been the town of Balta, a town of about 25,000 
inhabitants, nearly tliree-quarters of whom are Israelites. It lies about 125 miles 
northwest of Odessa. 

The riot is reported to have been from some trifling cause, such as the refusal of a 
Russian peasant to pay for the liquor he had drunk in a wine shop kept by a Jew. 

The police, which was very weak, appeal to have interfered simply to prevent the Jews 
from defending themselves. 

At first the rioters did not number more than 200, many of them boys. But the 
peasants began to come in from the country, joined the rioters, and gave a more serious 
turn to the affair. The riot lasted two days before troops arrived from Odessa to quell 
it. During this time, of the thousand homes occupied by the Jews all, except perhaps 
50, were gutted and sacked. As far as ascertained, one Israelite only lost his life. 
But the amount of suffering undergone by over 15,000 people — men, women, and chil- 
dren — destitute of food and lodging, is painful to contemplate. 

I am satisfied that the Russian Government is truly anxious to put a stop to these 
riots. It is reported that in the country far from the garrison towns the German 
inhabitants are very uneasy, and the saying is not uncommon, "After the Jews, the 
■Germans." 

But the position of the Russian Government in this matter is an exceedingly difficult 
one. In a conversation with Gen. Ignatieff, a few days since, he told me that the 
Government had received the reports of the numerous local boards appointed by it 
last year to suggest measures for the amelioration of the condition of the Jews; that they 
had not only by a majority but unanimously recommended their expulsion from the 
Empire. "We have, then," he said, "on the one hand 5,000,000 Jews, Russian subjects, 
clamoring to be freed from all special restraints, and we have on the other 85,000,000 
Russian subjects clamoring to have the 5,000,000 expelled from the Empire. What is 
to be done in such a case?" 

WicKHAM Hoffmann. 

(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 452.) 



Mr. Hoffmann to Mr, Frelinghuysen. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 1, 1882. 
Sir: Referring to your note 123, of the 15th of April last, and to my number 226, in 
reply, I have the honor to forward you herewith a copy of a circular of Count Tolstg, 
minister of the interior, addressed to the governors of the different Provinces of the 
Empke, upon the subject of the persecution of the Jews, together with a translation 
of the same. 

You will see that the opinion which I have ventured to express in my number 226, 
and previously in my number 221, that the Russian Government was sincerely de- 
sirous of putting a stop to all violence toward the Jews, is borne out by this circular. 

WiCKHAM Hoffmann. 
(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 454.) 

[Inelosure to No. 272.] 

The regulation of the committee of ministers approved by His Majesty the Emperor 
the 3d of May last set forth: 

That it must be brought to the public knowledge that the Government has resolved 
to pursue with inflexibility all violence exercised against the person and the property 
of the Israelites, who are under the protection of the law, common in this respect to 
all the population by the same right as those of the other subjects of His Majesty the 
Emperor. That the competent provincial authorities must be informed that the 
charge belongs to their responsibilities of the measures now to be taken with a view to 
avoid occasions of similar disorders and to put a stop to them as soon as they may 
break out; and for all negligence in this respect on the part of the administrative 



TERMIISrATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 139 

authorities and the police, when they might have but have not, taken the trouble to 
prevent acts of violence, those who have been guilty will be relieved of theii" functions. 

The publication of this expression of the imperial will has unfortunately been 
provoked on several occasions by disorders which have been renewed in different 
localities of the Empire, accompanied by violence against the Israelite population. 

Such disorders, which, as a result, cause individuals to lose, without distinction of 
race and religion, the certainty of the security of their person and of their property, 
prove the insufficiency of the guaranty of the regular and peaceable course of public 
life and deprive the Government of the possibility of devoting itself solely to a capital 
question, and just now of special importance, viz, to harmonize the activity of all 
governmental and social institutions and direct it toward the determined and clearly 
defined object of the reestablishment of tranquillity and order, which are the only sure 
guarantees of the ulterior development of public security and tranquillity. With this 
aim the regulations of the committee of ministers not only invite the competent 
authorities to take oiu- peremptory measiu-es to prevent the manifestation of all acts 
of violence, but to point out in addition the necessity of relieving from their functions 
persons who may be guilty of any negligence in this respect. 

In calling the most serious attention of the governors of the provinces to the punctual 
and inflexible execution of the imperial will expressed by the committee of ministers, 
I think proper on my side to explain, in development of the fundamental idea, that 
violence and arbitrariness can not be justified by any inciting causes; that for this 
reason the adoption of effective measures to be taken to prevent and arrest disorders 
rests upon the personal responsibility of the governors, and that every manifestation 
of local disorder will, as its inevitable consequence, render also legally responsible 
all the functionaries whose duty was the immediate charge of preventing disorders. 

Not judging it possible to give here any more direct instruction relative to the means 
of obtaining the above-mentioned end, considering that, on one side, these means 
are indicated by the law itself and that, on the other, the choice to make among them, 
when it is a question of applying them depends upon accidental circumstances, tem- 
porary and local, I have the couAdction that the governors of the provinces will carry 
out all the requirements clearly established by the imperial will, and will fully justify 
my hopes on this subject by pm'suing on their side, without the least hesitation, all 
negligence of the authorities. (Official Messenger.) 

(Foreign Relations, 1882, p. 454.) 



Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Taft. 

Department of State, 

Washington, December 18, 1884. 
Sir: The Hon. S. S. Cox, M. C, has addressed the department on the subject of a 
report that the Russian minister of the interior has ordered the expulsion from Odessa 
and other cities of the interior of all Hebrews holding foreign passports xmless also 
holding "permits of residence." 

So far as any of these persons are citizens of the United States I have to ask that you 
will communicate to the foreign office the desire of the President that law-abiding 
American Hebrews, on due exhibition of such passports, may receive the adequate 
permits of residence referred to. Should it prove that no such order has been made, 
you will telegraph, and in case the order has been issued you will report as promptly 
as convenient the approximate number of American citizens in the various cities where 
it is operative affected by it, that I may apprise Mr. Cox of the facts. 
I am, etc., 

Fredk. T. Frelinghuysen. 
(Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 655.) 



Mr. Taft to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, January 17, 1885. 

Sir: On the receipt of your dispatch No. 7, dated December 18, 1884, relating to the 

reported order of the minister of the interior of this Government, requiring foreign 

Hebrews to have a "permit of residence" as well as a passport in order to reside m 

Odessa and certain other cities in Russia, I immediately addressed a letter to the 



140 TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

foreign office containing specific inquiries on all the points covered by the dispatch, 
and communicated the desire of the President that "permits of residence" be granted 
to law-abiding American Hebrews. I have also personally called on the secretary of 
foreign affairs and on the secretary of the interior, and have likewise made inquiry 
of ambassadors of countries which have Jewish citizens residing in Russia. There 
is undoubtedly such an order as you describe in force, but it is not limited to Jews. 
No foreigner is allowed to reside in Russia without a "permit of residence," as well 
as a passport. The difficulty is that the Government in granting permits and licenses 
discriminates against foreign Jews, according to certain laws in force in Odessa and 
other cities, and declines generally to grant permits of residence to them imless they 
are merchants of the first guild, paying annually 800 rubles each for such a license. 
This is undoubtedly a different rule from that adopted by the Govermment for other 
foreigners, or for native Jewish citizens, and I have so presented the case to the sec- 
retary of foreign affairs. But it is claimed by this Government that while according 
to Article I of the treaty of 1832 American citizens enjoy the same security and pro- 
tection as do the inhabitants of the country in which they reside, it is upon condition 
that they submit to the laws and ordinances established there, and particularly as 
to the rules of commerce in force, and that as a matter of fact Israelites are subjected 
to a particular regime in Russia, regulated by laws and ordinances, and rules for com- 
merce, industry, and the police, and further that this regime referring to all foreign 
Israelites, without national distinction, can not be considered in the case of one indi- 
vidual Hebrew to whom it applies as any violation of the treaty of December 18, 1832. 

It is pretty clear that this Government adheres strongly to the opinion that it is 
essential to the interest of the Empire to restrict by law the residence of foreign Jews 
in the cities of the Empire. 

I find that Germany has many more cases of the kind than we have, and England 
also has Hebrew citizens residing in Russia, though not so many as Germany. Both 
Germany and England have conventions with Russia similar to that existing between 
the United States and Russia. Indeed, I think the articles are identical. I under- 
stand that the German Government does not dispute the right of the Russian to adopt 
these laws on the regulation of its internal affairs, notwithstanding the convention. 

Although the principle has been questioned by the English Government, the regu- 
lations of the Russian Government on the subject have been submitted to without 
any disturbance of friendly relations. 

As to the number of American citizens residing in the cities of Russia, accurate 
information is difficult to obtain, if it be at all practicable. I have requested the 
foreign office to give me such information on the subject as may be practicable, and I 
shall make such other inquiries as I can; but from the best information I have been 
able to obtain my belief is that the American Hebrews in Russia are very few. There 
is an evident belief on the part of the Russian Government that most of the Jews who 
have gone to America, obtained letters of naturalization, and returned to Russia for 
business are speculating on their naturalization papers to evade their military duty 
to the Russian Government. 

I write this statement without waiting for a specific written answer to my before- 
mentioned communication to the foreign office on the subject of your dispatch No. 7, 
as it may be some time before the answer will be received, and I believe tliat I am able 
to give a correct idea of the position of this Government on the subject from the verbal 
communications I have exchanged with the secretary of foreign affairs and from other 
sources. 

Alphonzo Taft. 

(Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 655.) 



Mr. Taft to Mr. Bayard. 

No. 30.] Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, March 18, 1885. 
Sir: Referring to instruction No. 7 from the Department of State to this legation and 
to my answer in part thereto, numbered 26, I have the now honor to send the answer 
of this Government to my application, made in pursuance of first-named dispatch, 
with a translation thereof. 

I am, etc. Alphonzo Taft. 

(Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 657.) 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 141 

Mr. Vlangaly to Mr. 




Imperial Ministry-^Jp Foreign Affairs, 

Department of Internal Relations, 

St. Petersburg, March 5, 1885. 

Mr. Minister: Your note of December 22, 1884, with which you favored the min- 
istry, had for object to obtain information on the point whether the Imperial Govern- 
ment had issued an order by which all foreign Israelites were expelled from the city 
of Odessa and other localities in the Empire. You at the same time expressed in the 
name of your Government the desire that permits of residence might be given to all 
Jewish citizens of the United States of America. 

I have to-day the honor to inform you, on a communication from the ministry of 
the interior, that no such action has been taken by the Imperial Government. 

In regard to furnishing the Jewish citizens of America with Russian permits of resi- 
dence, the minister of the interior observes that he can not comply with this request, 
as according to the regulations established on this subject, every foreigner having this 
national passpost in due order is obliged, on his own application to be furnished by the 
competent Russian authority with a permit of residence. 

The law at the same time grants to foreigners the right to bring complaint for any 
irregularity that may take place in this respect. 

I have also to add that the Imperial Government is unable to supply the legation of 
the United States with statistics concerning the number of Jewish-American citizens 
residing in Russia. 

Receive, etc. A. Vlangalt. 

(Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 65T.) 



Mr. Lothrop to Mr. Bayard. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 7, 1886. 

Sir: As the question has recently come up again, I think it my duty to advise the 
State Department of the present status of the right of citizens of the United States 
being of the Hebrew faith to enter into or dwell m Russia. 

The laws of Russia forbid this. It is true that there are some exceptions in favor of 
members of great banking or commercial houses, but this is of no practical value to 
Americans. 

The matter has heretofore been the subject of careful and extended correspondence 
between the State Department and this legation, especially in 1880 and 1881. A 
digest of the Russian law may be found in Mr. Foster's dispatch of July 14, 1881. 

Every effort seems to have been made to induce the imperial authorities to modify 
its laws in favor of our citizens, but wholly without success . There is now no probabil- 
ity of such modification. Indeed, there seems to be a revival of strictness in enforcing 
the restrictions. Strict orders have been issued to Russian officials abroad not to vise 
the passport of any persons recognized as foreign Jews. The object is to turn all such 
persons back at the frontier, and thus prevent their entering the Empire. If, however, 
any get through, their passports are subjected to renewed scrutiny in all large cities, 
and if they are recognized they are forthwith ordered to leave. The papers announce 
that only a few days ago two English Jews, one of them a member of Parliament, were 
peremptorily expelled at Moscow. 

On August 29 a most respectable Hebrew merchant of New York, a native-born 
citizen of the United States, who was traveling in Russia as a tourist with his family, 
was waited on at his hotel in this city by the police, his passport returned to him, and 
he was ordered to leave the city that night. He came to me immediately and I at 
once not only went to the foreign office but filed a protest in writing against this 
order and asked for its revocation. At the same time I advised him to remain pend- 
ing my application. My explanation of this gentleman's character and the purpose 
of his visit was very readily accepted and the order of expulsion revoked. 

The Imperial Government defends its position on the ground that every country 
must have full liberty to determine who shall have the right to enter and dwell in 
its territory. It is not pretended that American citizens of the Hebrew faith have 
ever at any time proved dangerous to the peace or safety of the Empire. But it is 
urged that discrimination between natiqpalities is inadmissible, and that the harsh- 
ness of the general rule it mitigated by special permission given in all proper case 
upon special application. 



142 TERMIISrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

I believe that the Russian officials are disposed to be obliging in this respect, but 
it can never be acceptable that any body of American citizens should be subject to 
any such necessity. It seems to be an imputation which is justly held most sacred. 

Still, as there is not the slightest intention to abrogate or even modify the law, it 
may be desirable that the facts should be more fully known in America. 

Much annoyance and mortification would be saved if our Hebrew fellow citizens 
desiring to come to Russia should apply for special leave. Letters of introduction 
to the legation would be most useful in promoting such application. Permission 
could doubtless be obtained in all ordinary cases. 

The question has arisen in several other cases; but in no case of an American citizen 
has an actual order of expulsion been made. 

I submit the matter to you for such consideration and direction as you shall think 
best. 

I am, very truly, etc., George V. N. Lothrop. 

(Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 773.) 



Mr. Bayard to Mr. Lothrop. 

Department op State, 
Washington, September 23, 1886. 

Sir: In your No. 77 you inform the department of the present status of the Russian 
law respecting the right of an alien of the Hebrew faith to enter or reside within His 
Imperial Majesty's territory. 

You state that, save in exceptional cases, it is altogether denied, and that though 
efforts have been made on various occasions by the legation to induce the Russian 
Government to modify this law, there now exists no probability of such modification, 
although special exception has been made at your request. 

The treatment of alien Jews prescribed by the Russian law is such as we, whose 
system of government rests on toleration and freedom of conscience, can not compre- 
hend without difficulty or view without regert. Aimed, as it would appear, princi- 
pally at Russian Polish Jews by origin, and rigidly applied as to them even when 
they are lawful citizens of another State, the fact that the enforcement of the law in 
the case of worthy foreign Jews of other origin appears to be within the discretion of 
the police authorities and that the representations of the legation are generally heeded 
when an American Jew is in question fortunately makes occasion for protest rare. 

The instance cited by you is in point where a native-born Hebrew merchant of New 
York was promptly relieved from a harsh order of expulsion. 

Any case arising should be carefully examined on its merits, and where the person 
interested is not by origin a Russian Jew, returning to his native country under 
circumstances suggesting danger to the State and implying the exercise of the ultimate 
right of self-preservation, the earnest efforts of the legation will doubtless be exerted 
to secure relief in whatever way the Russian administrative system may indicate as 
practical. 

The Government of the Czar is fully aware that we do not admit the principle of 
discriminating against American citizens because of their religious tenets. 

T. F. Bayard 

(Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 774.) 



Mr. Bayard to Baron Rosen. 

Department op State, 
Washington, October 4, 1887, 
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to the charg6 d'affaires ad interim 
of Russia, and has the honor to request him to cause the inclosed documents to be 
authenticated under the seal of the Russian legation and then returned to the Depart- , 
ment of State. 

(Foreign Relations, 1887, p, 971.) 



•lEBMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 143 

Baron Rosen to Mr. Bayard. 

Imperial Russian Legation, 
Washington, September 2S-October 5, 1887. 

The charg^ d'affaires of Russia presents his compliments to the Secretary of State, 
and has the honor to say, in reply to his communication of the 4th of October, that 
the documents foi-warded for authentication relating to property in Russian Poland, 
and issuing from persons who appear to be Hebrews, could only be legalized by this 
legation if accompanied by passports for foreign travel or other documentary evidence 
showing that the said persons had left Russia with the permission of the Imperial Gov- 
ernment, as all legations and consulates are under instructions not to authenticate any 
documents whatsoever relating to the transfer of property in Russian Poland issuing 
from Hebrews who have left Russia without permission. In the absence of the evi- 
dence above referred to the charg6 d'affaires of Russia regrets not to be able to comply 
with the requests of the Secretary of State in regard to the authentication of the said 
documents, which are returned herewith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1887, p. 971.) 



Mr. Lothrop to Mr. Bayard. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, November 29, 1887. 

Sir: As I have in a previous dispatch had the honor to make known to you the 
laws_ of Russia prohibit foreign-born Jews, with some unimportant exceptions, from 
coming into Russia, or becoming domiciled therein. 

During this year the law has been very rigorously enforced against all newcomers, and 
it now seems to be a fixed policy to drive out all who have hitherto become domiciled 
in the Empire. The newspapers mention the expulsion of large bodies in southern 
Russia, where they principally live. I have been appealed to by several naturalized 
American citizens, who have been notified that they must leave the Empire by the 
end of the year. 

I have replied to all such applications that, while I should always be glad to render 
them any proper asistance, this was a matter wholly within the domain of Russian law, 
so long as foreign Jews of all nationalities were treated alike, and no discrimination 
made against American citizens. 

_ The ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs have power on peti- 
tion to grant permission to remain here in special cases. 

Mr. D. Waldenberg, a naturalized American citizen, but a Jew of foreign birth 
long settled at Plock and doing business there, was some months ago notified that he 
must leave the country by the end of the year. He was so well esteemed by his 
neighbors that they generally petitioned for a grant of special permission in his favor. 
I thought the case was one in which I could properly join in the application, and 
did so. No reply has been made. 

I have a warm sympathy for these people whose homes and business are thus relent- 
lessly broken up; but my concern would be even deeper if they were only temporarily 
living here, engaged in promoting business and commerce with their adopted country. 
But I regret to say that_ in nearly every case brought to my attention they seem to 
be permanently settled in Russia and engaged in its domestic business. 

As many of these persons, if expelled, will be likely to find their way back to 
America, where their hardships may attract attention, and it has seemed to me proper 
to set out the precise facts of the case, and to show that the unfortunate condition of 
this class of our fellow citizens has not been regarded here with indifference. 

George V. N. Lothrop. 
(Foreign Relations, 1888, p. 1399.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 25, 1890. 
Sir: You have been advised by previous dispatches from this legation that the 
published rumors of the new prescriptive measures, or the revival and oppressive 
application of the old and obsolete edicts, against the Hebrew residents and subjects 

19831—11 ^10 



144 TERMIlSrATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

of the Russian Empire are declared by the Russian Government to be entirely- 
groundless. Notwithstanding the authoritative denial of these reports, they still 
crop up from time to time, and are persistently repeated with a degree of circumstance 
well calculated to create the impression that they have some foundation of fact. 
This continued imputation of purpose and acts, to which, if really entertained or 
executed, we could not be indifferent, renders it proper that I should apprise you of 
some further evidence on the subject. 

The statement recently appeared in the colums of the London Times that, despite 
the disavowal of the Russian Government, some 500 or 600 Hebrew families residing 
at Odessa had been summarily notified that they must immediately abandon their 
homes, and in fact that they had already been expelled from the country. It has 
come to my knowledge that in view of this publication the British Embassy at this 
capital called on the British consul at Odessa to investigate the story and report upon 
its truth. His report has now been made, and I am able to communicate its substance. 
He directed his inquiries not only among the Government ofiicials, but among the 
Hebrews themselves, and the latter were as emphatic as the former in declaring that 
no order of the character described had been issued and no movement of the kind 
attempted. He found no confirmation of the story in any quarter. A number of 
Hebrew families had emigrated or were preparing to do so, but the action was entirely 
voluntary on their part and was not taken under compulsion. This emigration was 
explained by the rabbis and the highest authorities among the Hebrews as due to the 
fact that there were many youths in those families, and that, as the number admitted 
to the universities in Russia is limited, they removed to other countries to secure 
the opportunity of higher education; and thus it was made clear that there was no 
foundation for the particular charge which has been preferred against the Government. 

These reports of new prescriptive designs against the Hebrews on the part of the 
Russian Government have actually created more concern in other coimtries than 
here, because, so far as can be ascertained, they had their sole origin and obtained 
their sole credence remote from the scene. Had there been any good reason for 
supposing that measures so repugnant to every sentiment of justice and humanity 
were actually undertaken or seriously contemplated, it would have been a duty to 
report them for such consideration as they would have required; but it is a source of 
special gratification to be able to present not only the denial of the Government, 
but confirmatory testimony that these injurious allegations are baseless. 
I have, etc., 

Charles Emory Smith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 701.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation or the United States, 

St. Petersburg, February 10, 1891. 

Sir: A few days ago I had an extended, interesting, and suggestive conversation 
with the imperial minister of foreign affairs, Mr. de Giers, concerning the attitude 
and policy of Russia in respect to the Jewish subjects of the Empire. Mr. de Giers 
himself introduced the theme. In the absence of specific instructions and of any 
pending cases involving the rights of American citizens of Jewish faith, and thus 
touching the subject more or less directly, I might have felt some hesitation, unless 
in the couse of an informal and personal talk, in opening an inquiry possibly liable 
to the reproach of intruding into the domain of the internal policy and domestic 
affairs of the Empire. But the freedom with which Mr. de Giers himself raised the 
question removed all embarrassment. In view of recent publications throughout 
the world and of the wide public and hiimane interest in the subject, the exposition 
and statements of the minister of foreign affairs are noteworthy and valuable. I can 
not undertake to repeat all that was said in a conversation that was quite prolonged, 
but will give the most salient features. 

Mr. de Giers began by alluding to recent publications in American newspapers 
respecting Russia and the Jewish question, and said that these publications had been 
the subject of a conversation between the Emperor and himself the day before. Some 
of these contained personal references to the American representative, and an expres- 
sion of the Emperor on this point was repeated — an expression to which allusion is 
made only as indicating how the conversation originated. Mr. de Giers then referred 
to the current reports that the" Russian Government had projected or meditated new 
laws of a harsh character against the Jews, and said in the most explicit terms that 
no new laws had been made on this subject, and none were in contemplation. He 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 145 

added that he was thoroughly informed, for he was a member of the council having 
charge of the question. The published reports were destitute of foundation and no 
such piu-pose was entertained as that which had been imputed to the Government. 

The statement was a repetition and confirmation of the denial made a few months 
ago on the first publication of the reports. At that time, however, it was charged in 
response that, while it might be true that no new laws had been framed or would be 
promulgated, still substantially the same object would be attained by the revival and 
vigorous execution of the edicts of 1882, which had long remained dormant. I re- 
called these facts and asked Mr. De Giers whether there was any good warrant for this 
allegation. He replied that there was not. The edicts of 1882 were, he said, some- 
what misunderstood. They were not strictly new measures. They were rather in 
the natm-e of formulating and more precisely defining provisions already in existence 
in less specific and exact form. They had come just after the assassination of the late 
Emperor and after the anti-Jewish distiu'bances in several of the interior Provinces 
where there was a tendency toward a more stringent application of the restrictive 
policy. It was his own feeling that the minister of the interior at that time had pro- 
ceeded with too much rigor. Old laws which had slept practically imexecuted in 
many features were suddenly applied with too severe a hand, and hardships had 
inevitably resulted. 

Since then the execution of the laws had again been relaxed, and their restriction 
had been disregarded and overstepped. I asked Mr. De Giers, if it was not true that 
measxu-es had recently been taken toward the removal of the Jews from the villages 
to the towns in the pale to which their residence is limited by law. He answered 
that there was some movement in that direction. What was being done was to tighten 
the application of the old laws somewhat, but it would be done gently and gradually — 
I am careful to quote his own words— and with every reasonable allowance and con- 
sideration. The laws had not been changed; they had simply slumbered, in large 
part, and because they had been so generally disregarded and nullified both by the 
Government and by the Jews, the movement to enforce them, even though in a lim- 
ited degree, created all the more outcry. 

In answer to my inquiry as to why it was deemed necessary to withdraw the Jews 
from the villages and lands where they had been located, Mr. De Giers said that, 
so far as it was done at all, it was a measure of self -protection. This question involves 
what is well known to be a subject of earnest controversy. The Jews contend that 
when they have a fair chance they address themselves to agriculture as faithfully 
and successfully as other people. Mr. De Giers, however, maintained the other 
view. He said that if they would really devote themselves to agricultural pursuits 
the Government would leave them undisturbed and would gladly give them land 
for cultivation. He cited a special and notable experiment of the kind in the Prov- 
ince of Kiev under the Emperor Nicholas, which was claimed to have resulted unfor- 
tunately. He insisted that when they acquired land they secure a Christian tenant 
and go on as before with their own vocations. He declared that they monopolize what 
he described as the saloons and the mills. They make such a combination that all 
operations of production and sale must go through their hands. He gave these alle- 
gations as an explanation of the law which restricts Jews tothe towns, and insisted 
that it was a question not of religion but of economic policy. This view will be 
vigorously resented and resisted by the friends of the Jews, who hold that it is unfair 
in statement and unjust in conclusion, and that so far as it has a basis of fact, the 
conditions grow out of the exceptional necessities imposed by a long historical course 
of oppressive measures directed against the race and not limited to any country. 
But Mr. De Giers was stating what was relied on as the justification for the policy 
of the Russian Government, and in reporting his observations, I am under the duty 
of giving them as he made them. 

He frankly admits that the question was one of great difficulty and perplexity, and 
it was hard to tell what ought to be done in justice and reason. On the one hand, he 
recognized that the Jews suffered hardships, and he felt much sympathy for them. 
On the other hand, it was necessary to protect their own people, and especially the 
simple and improvident peasantry. In this connection he adverted to the restriction 
upon the proportion of Jewish students permitted to enter the schools. The Hebrews 
were an intellectual race, more alert mentally than the ingenuous people by whom 
they were surrounded, and if they had free and unlimited access to the highest oppor- 
tunities of education they would absorb the professions within themselves. As an 
additional reason, he repeated the statement earnestly made in some quarters and as 
earnestly denied in others — that among the educated Hebrews are found many 
nihilists. 

Mr. De Giers recmred several times to the fact that the laws were left in a large 
measrure unexecuted. They existed on paper, but they were loosely applied. For 



146 TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

instance, theoretically, Jews are not permitted to reside at St. Petersburg or at Moscow, 
yet in practice they are here by the thousands, filling the professions and the banking 
houses, with their great synagogue, recently erected, and their unfettered religious 
devotions. The laws had long nominally restricted the movements of the Jews to the 
towns within the 15 districts which constitute the pale. They had prohibited those 
proscribed people from holding lands or dwelling in the villages, except under cer- 
tain conditions. But these laws had not been strictly enforced and there has been a 
steady encroachment upon prohibited ground, and now that their interdictions are 
again applied to some extent it produces all the more friction and complaint. In 
answer to an inquiry as to whether there was not at present a considerable emigration 
of Jews under these coercive measures or through fear of a more serious proscription, 
Mr. De Giers said that at various times there had been an emigration under such appre- 
hensions, but in many of these cases the emigrants found their way back worse off than 
when they went away. 

One great source of trouble, he remarked, was the difficulty of controlling the sub- 
ordinate officials. He did not doubt that there were wrongs of which the Government 
had no knowledge. In an empire as vast as Russia it was impossible to watch closely 
all of the thousands of employees. The whole question, Mr. De Giers repeated, was 
surrounded with difficulty, but he hoped that some solution might be found though 
he did not suggest what it might be, and his tone carried the impression that there 
was yet no clear perception of a satisfactory issue. 

Though the fact that Mr. De Giers himself introduced the topic, and was so free and 
frank in discussing it, seemed to invite and encourage corresponding freedom of inquiry, 
I intimated that I felt some hesitation in interrogating him upon what might be 
regarded as a matter of internal policy. In reply he desired me to dismiss all hesita- 
tion and to ask any question I liked. He added, speaking with emphasis: 

"Don't hesitate to ask even disagreeable questions, or questions that you might 
think disagreeable, for we are so conscious of our good intentions in this matter that 
we are willing to meet any inquiry." 

The subject had come up unexpectedly, and I thought it best under the circum- 
stances, to confine myself chiefly to eliciting information, and to reserve representations 
deemed expedient or obligatory until another occasion, after communicating with the 
department. I did, however, feel it incumbent on me to say, as I did during the 
course of the conversation, that, while we recognize the treatment of the people within 
its own borders as a question of domestic concern that belongs primarily to Russia, 
except so far as it may affect the rights of American citizens, we hold, and in any 
reference to the subject the representative of the United States must hold, the attitude 
which is in harmony with the theory and practice of our Government, which makes 
no distinction on account of creed. I added that the American people, prompted by 
the liberal and humane sentiments which distinguished them, would witness with 
satisfaction movements toward the amelioration of the condition of the Jews; at the 
same time, in any utterance on the question, we desired to approach it in a fair and 
friendly spirit and with a just sense of the peculiar situation of Russia. To this Mr. 
De Giers replied that he thought the feeling of the American people was quite natural; 
there was, unfortunately, much in the condition of the Jews to pity, but the conditions 
of the two countries were entirely different. The Jews of the United States were of a 
high class and were in accord with the general body of the citizens, and he thought the 
American people, though their feeling was easily understood, misapprehended the 
real facts as to Russia. 

Such, in substance, and at the more vital points in the exact language, eo far as it 
can be recalled, was the conversation. It furnishes as a fresh assurance, in harmony 
with the information I have heretofore communicated, that the Russian Government 
itself declares that no new measures of a proscriptive character against the Jews are 
contemplated. _ As to the existing laws, they have come to be "fairly well known, 
though on various points it is still difficult to ascertain their precise provisions. 
They consist of a vast mass of edicts, ordained from time to time, filling hundreds of 
pages, some of them actively in force and some of them practically obsolete and 
unexecuted. They subject the Jews to a special code in the matters of taxation, 
education, residence, rights of worship, limitations of industry and trade, and kindred 
affairs, entering into all the relations of life. If they were generally and stringently 
enforced they would involve incalculable hardship. As showing what the Russian 
Government itself says in explanation of these discriminatory and restrictive laws, 
and in regard to the disposition with which it approaches their administration, the 
statements of Mr. de Giers have a value that will be appreciated. His reputation as 
one of the most liberal and careful statesmen of Russia gives them weight. To a 
people trained with a different inheritance, and under a different system of reflec- 
tion is, however, suggested that, whatever may be thought of the evils alleged in 



TEEMINATI03Sr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 147 

justification of the existing policy, the remedy more consonant with the spirit of the 
age would seem to be not to proscribe an entire people, the innocent with the guilty, 
but to proscribe the offenses and proceed against the offenders without regard to 
their race or their faith. 

On the question of the administration of the laws, I have instituted inquiries in 
other quarters, upon which I shall report hereafter. 

Charles Emory Smith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 734.) 



Mr, Blaine to Mr. Smith. 

Department of State, 

Washington, February 18, 1891. 

Sir : On the 26th of August last the House of Representatives adopted a resolution 
requesting the President to communicate to that body any information in his posses- 
sion concerning the enforcement of the prescriptive edicts against the Jews in Russia. 
To this resolution the President responded on the 1st of October, and accompanying 
his response there was a report in which, with reference to the rumors that new meas- 
ures of repression were about to be put in force, I said : 

"Such a step, if in reality contemplated, would not only wound the universal and 
intimate sentiment of humanity, but would suggest the difficult problem of affording 
an immediate asylum to a million or more exiles without seriously deranging the con- 
ditions of labor and of social organization in other communities." 

The correspondence communicated to the House of Representatives included your 
reassuring dispatch No. 44, of the 25th of September last; and this dispatch, together 
with assurances received in conversations with the diplomatic representative of 
Russia at this capital, tended to allay the apprehension necessarily aroused by the 
prospect either of the adoption of new measures or the harsh enforcement of the old. 

Up to the present time the department has not been advised that any new edicts 
affecting the Jews have been promulgated. The cases of distress that have been 
brought to our notice are the result, in some instances, of the new interpretation and 
in others of the strict enforcement of regulations which have for some years been in 
existence, but of which the severity was not generally understood because they were 
not rigorously applied. 

The department is informed that for many years the Jews in Russia have, as a race, 
been compelled to live within a certain area denominated the pale of settlement. 
Under the laws of May, 1882, it is understood that their places of residence within 
this area have been restricted by forbidding them to live in villages and to force them 
into the towns. The effect of the recent and summary enforcement of this measure 
in certain districts has been to deprive many of their means of livelihood. It is also 
understood that under the laws for many years in existence Jewish artisans have been 
permitted to reside outside of the pale of settlement. The department is informed 
that by a new interpretation of the law many classes of workers formerly regarded as 
artisans are now denied that privilege, and being suddenly forced to quit their homes 
and to swell the number of their race in the overcrowded towns within the pale of 
settlement, find themselves unable to gain a subsistence by the pursuit of their 
respective occupations. 

Other measures, such as the withdrawal of the privilege of pursuing many occupa- 
tions, the denial of admission to the schools, and the actual expulsion as "alien 
vagrants" of persons long domiciled in Russia contribute to swell the emigration. 
I forbear to enumerate the edicts particularly applicable to the family, by which the 
ties of relationship are rent and a premium put upon their severance. I do not dwell 
on these things, not only because it is not my purpose to indulge in a general criticism 
of the anti-Jewish laws, but also because those that I have explicitly referred to in 
the main account for the cases that have been brought to my notice. 

That numbers of Jews have been and are daily being compelled to quit their homes 
in Russia by the enforcement of these oppressive measures is amply shown by the 
present immigration of destitute Russian Jews into the United States. Heretofore 
this immigration, although large, being mainly made up of persons who were in some 
measure prepared for the change, has not overtaxed the resources of the variour 
benevolent associations which are so generously maintained and admirably admin- 
istered by the Jews of the United States. I am told on excellent authority that 
within 10 years some 200,000 Jews of Russian origin have been received into this 
country, have been furnished, when necessary, with occupation and home, and have 
become speedily assimilated into the body politic, of which they form an orderly, 
thrifty, and law-abiding element. 



148 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

The gravest fears are expressed lest this resource should fail if taxed with a great 
influx of Russian Jews, who by reason of theii' sudden expulsion from their homes, 
and their unfamiliarity with the language and ways of life in this country would stand 
in need of immediate, and in many cases long- continued assistance, and care. 

You are aware that the problem of efficiently controlling immigration has been 
before the National Legislature for some years. Measures have aheady been adopted 
for its regulation, and several schemes of further legislation are now pending before 
Congress. These measiues, however, have not been due to an inhospitable disposition. 
The policy of this Government in respect to the admission of aliens to its shores has 
been most liberal. It has afforded to many thousands a home and a ready entrance 
into its political and social life, and it still offers to spontaneous, self-helpful, and inde- 
pendent immigration a cordial welcome. 

If measures of restriction have been adopted, it is only because it has been found 
necessary to avert the injection into the population of elements not assimilable and 
the bringing or sending hither the indigent and the helpless to become a charge upon 
the community. In no instance has any measure of expulsion or of oppression been 
adopted in respect to those who are already here, all of whom stand under the equal 
protection of the laws. 

But the hospitality of a nation should not be turned into a burden. And however 
much we may sympathize with wanderers forced by untoward circumstances to quit 
their homes, and however ready the disposition to relieve the deplorable condition 
into which they may be cast by the application of the laws of their native country, the 
Government and the people of the United States can not avoid a measure of concern 
at the enforcement of measures which threaten to frustrate their efforts to minister to 
the wants and improve the conditions of those who are driven to seek a livelihocd 
within its borders. 

We are not forgetful of the ties of good relationship that have long subsisted between 
the United States and Russia, and of the friendly acts of Russia toward our country 
in the past. The Government and people of the United States are fully animated 
with a desire to preserve this cordiality of feeling, and for this reason they the more 
strongly deprecate the enforcement in Russia, in respect to a portion of her people, 
of measures which not only arouse a general feeling of disappointment, but which 
also operate to impose a tax upon the charitable and humane in this country. 

The Government of the United States does not assume to dictate the internal policy 
of other nations or to make suggestions as to what their municipal laws should be 
or as to the manner in which they should be administered. Nevertheless the mutual 
duties of nations require that each should use its power with a due regard for the other 
and for the results which its exercise produces on the rest of the world. It is in this 
respect that the condition of the Jews in Russia is now brought to the attention of 
the United States, upon whose shores are cast daily evidences of the suffering and 
destitution wrought by the enforcements of the edicts against this unhappy people. 
I am pursuaded that His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia and his councillors 
can feel no sympathy with measures which are forced upon other nations by such 
deplorable consequences. 

You will read this instruction to the minister of foreign affairs and give him a copy, 
if he desires it. 

I am, etc., James G. Blaine. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 737.) 



Mr. Blaine to Mr, Smith. 

Department of State, 
Washington, February £7, 1891. 

Sir: Your dispatch No. 75 of the 10th of February, reporting a conversation with 
Mr. de Giers in relation to the treatment of the Jews in Russia, was received by the 
departmen on the 25th of the same month. On the 18th of February, just a week 
previously, I addressed to you a communication to be read to Mr. de Giers on the 
same subject. 

"While the statement in that communication touching the harsh treatment of theJews 
are completely confirmed by Mr. de Giers, I have observed with not a little satisfac- 
tion his readiness in suggesting this topic of conversation and his expression of willing- 
ness to consider any inquiries you might make. It was believed that the Government 
of Russia would not disregard the evidences which have appeared in various countries 
of the general interest and solicitude which have been elicited throughout the civilized 
world by the reports of the oppression of the Jewish race in the domains of His Imperial 



TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 149 

Majesty. Nevertheless the fact that the subject has been brought forward by the impe- 
rial minister of foreign affairs himself increases our hope that the representations of 
this Government, based upon the deplorable aspects of the question which have been 
brought to its notice, will not only receive the consideration to which they are thought 
to be justly entitled, but will also more fully impress the Government of Russia with 
the fact that the effects of the repressive policy against the Jews are not confined to 
that country, but that they also excite the sympathy and appeal to the generous and 
chai'i table efforts of the people of other lands. 

Ever since the transmission to you of the instructions of the 18th of February, the 
department has received fresh evidences of the immediate and material, as well as of 
the broad and general interest which has been felt in this country in regard to the 
hardships of the Jewish subjects of His Imperial Majesty. Almost every day commu- 
nications are received upon this subject, temperate and couched in language respect- 
ful to the Government of the Czar, but at the same time indicative and strongly expres- 
sive of the depth and prevalence of the sentiment of disapprobation and regret. No 
Government can be insensible of a fact of so much significance and I am happy to 
perceive the appreciation of the sentiments and interests of other people which the 
conversation of Mr. de Giers discloses. 

I am, etc., James G. Blaine. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 740.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, February 28, 1891. 

Sir: In view of the numerous and varied reports during the last few months con- 
cerning the purpose and action of the Russian Government in regard to the Jewish 
people living within the Empire, I have deemed it useful to institute some inquiries 
on the subject through the consuls of the United States. To this end I sent out in 
January a circular letter. The design of this circular was not to initiate a minute 
investigation into the details, Avhich would require much time, but to elicit trust- 
worthy information upon the spirit and tendencies which mark the present policy 
toward the Jews. It was deemed necessary to communicate only with the consuls 
located in the section where the Jews are found in considerable numbers, and the 
circular was therefore addressed only to the consuls at Warsaw, Odessa, and Riga. 

They all agree that there is no evidence of the application and enforcement of new 
measures against the Hebrews. At the same time those on the western frontier of 
the Empire observe signs of the more stringent execution of the old laws which have 
heretofore so loosely and lightly been observed as to be practically inoperative. 

As to St. Petersburg and Moscow, the best information I can gather leads to the 
conclusion that the present policy of the Government is inducing some withdrawal 
of the Jews from these centers. 

The long-established laws permit only Jewish merchants of the first guild and Jews 
of certain other professional or artisan classes to reside in these cities. But the pro- 
hibition against Jews outside of these classes has not been enforced with any degree 
of strictness, and under the influence of this laxity thousands who are interdicted by 
the terms of the law have settled in St. Petersburg and Moscow. I do not under- 
stand that there is any harsh or general movement to enforce the law now, but am 
informed that such inquiries have been set on foot as to create the fear on the part 
of those not embraced within the tolerated classes that trouble may be experienced, 
and that under this apprehension some of them are removing from the two chief 
cities of the Empire. 

I am, etc., Charles Emory Smith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 740.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, March 12, 1891. 
Sir- I have the honor to report that I yesterday waited upon the minister of foreign 
affairs, Mr. de Giers, with a copy of your instructions No. 78, relating to the edicts 
and policy of Russia concerning the Jews. Upon hearing my statement of the 



150 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

object of my call, Mr. de Giers requested me not to read the dispatch to him but to 
leave a copy which he could examine at leisure. 

I then gave him a verbal outline of its contents, referring to the resolution of inquiry 
passed by the House of Representatives in August of last year touching rumored 
prescriptive edicts against the Jews and to your report in response. You had received 
assurances, so you stated in this dispatch, which tended to allay apprehensions that 
had been aroused by alarming publications, and the department had no information 
that any new measures hostile to the Jews had been undertaken. The cases of dis- 
tress which had been brought to its attention were explained by the more rigorous 
enforcement of the old laws whose severity had not been understood so long as they 
had not been applied. That the Jews of Russia were subjected to coercive and 
oppressive measures which compelled them to quit their homes was shown by the 
number of unfortunate and indigent Russian Jews who were now arriving in the United 
States. You had been informed on excellent authority that within a period of 10 
years this immigration amounted to 200,000. Most of these immigrants had been well 
provided for, but a further influx of destitute persons entirely unprepared for the 
conditions and requirements of American life would be a very serious burden for the 
American people. It was in this aspect of the results forced upon our country that 
the condition of the Jews in Russia under existing measures presented itself to the 
attention of our Government and people, and, in view of the mutual duties of nations, 
constrained this expression of their sentiments. 

On this statement of the general tenor of your dispatch, Mr. de Giers hastened to 
ask at the outset what was its conclusion — what demand it presented. I replied 
that it presented no demand, but was a declaration of the views of the Government 
and people of the United States, which was submitted for the consideration of the 
Imperial Government of Russia under a sense of its own obligations. Mr. de Giers 
inquired particularly as to the statement that 200,000 Russian Jews had emigrated to 
the United States within 10 years. I repeated your statement on this point. He 
rejoined that if such a number of people had gone to the United States as workers to 
aid in developing the country he supposed they would be acceptable, but if they 
went to "exploit" the American people, as he expressed it, he could understand how 
objectionable it was. After some further observations of a general character Mr. de 
Giers concluded by saying that the dispatch would be received in the same friendly 
spirit in which it was sent; that he would submit it to the Emperor; and that, if it 
was determined to make reply either verbally or in writing, it would be duly com- 
municated. 

I have, etc., Charles Emory Smith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 741.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation op The United States, 

St. Petersburg, April 20, 1891. 

Sir: In my No. 79, it was stated that some of the Hebrew residents of St. Petersburg 
and Moscow were taking their departure fi-om these cities under the apprehension that 
xneasines threatened in the near future and directed against them which would render 
their continued stay either quite uncomfortable or altogether impossible. These per- 
sons belon» to the class of Hebrews who are prohibited by law from locating outside 
the pale of settlement. Under the nonenforcement of lenient administration of the 
law, they have established themselves here and at Moscow and have remained for 
years without being disturbed. But the premonition of a more stringent policy has 
led a few to withdraw themselves in anticipation of early steps for their forcible 
expulsion. 

These fears have been measurably justified by the event. Within a few days the 
Russian journals have stated that 150 Jewish families of Moscow have been notified 
that they must remove from that city, and I am informed that 50 families of this city 
are about to receive similar notification. It is probable that these are only the fore- 
runners of further expulsions. No new law has been ordained and none has been 
required to this end. It is held to be simply an application of the existing law hitherto 
unenforced. According to the strict letter of the law there are many thousands living 
here and at the ancient capital of the Empire without legal authority. The number 
is said to be from 10,000 to 20,000 at St. Petersburg and nearly 100,000 at Moscow. 
Though destitute of technical right, their residence has had the sanction of long tolera- 
ion and has acquired the sacredness of an established home, the compulsory abandon- 



TEEMINATIOI^ OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 151 

ment of which would be attended with hardship. It is supposed that the result will 
be tempered with such a degree of consideration and such allowance of time for prepara- 
tion as are compatible with a measm'e of this nature. The Government has declared 
that this new application of the old laws would be made "gently and gradually" and 
the steps now taken, with those to follow, will show how these terms are to be 
interpreted. 

Charles Emory Smith. 
(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 742.) 



Mr. Wurts to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, April 27, 1891. 

Sir: Referring to Mr. Smith's dispatch. No. 89, of the 20th instant, I have the honor 
to transmit to you herewith inclosed a translation of an imperial ukase prohibiting the 
emigration of certain categories of Israelites from the zone assigned for Israelites, as 
well as their immigration into the city and Province' of Moscow, and at the same time 
directing the expulsion of these classes of Israelites from that place into the zone 
assigned for their settlemtnt. 

It will be remarked that this order applies only to Moscow, no mention being made 
of the city and Province of St. Petersburg, perhaps for the reason that the number of 
Jews in this city being estimated at five times less than at the ancient capital of the 
Empire, no special urgency is felt for a measure to arrest the increase of. the Hebrew 
population in this place. 

It is premature to report on how this order, made public only a few days ago, is being 
executed, but I regret to say that rumors are heard of undue severity in its application. 

George W. Wurts. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 743.) 

[Tmperial ukase concerning the domicile of Jews.] 

On the proposition of the minister of the interior. His Majesty the Emperor, has 
deigned to give an order, on the 28th of March, 1891, as follows: 

(1) To forbid until revision by legislative channel of the arrangement of article 157, 
note 3, of the regulation concerning passports, Israelites engaged in the business of 
machinist, brewer, distiller, and in general Israelite workmen and artisans, to emigrate 
from the zone assigned for the fixed settlement of Israelites; as also to emigrate from 
other parts of the Empire to Moscow or to the Province of Moscow. 

(2) To charge the minister of the interior to take, in concert with the governor 
general of Moscow, the necessary measures in order that the Israelites above mentioned 
maji gradually be sent away from Moscow and from the Province of Moscow into the 
zone assigned for their settlement. 

(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 743.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Wharton. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 20, 1891. 

Sir: As stated in my No. 114, I prolonged my stay in London while returning to this 
post for the purpose of meeting several gentlemen particularly conversant with the 
Jewish question as is now presented in Russia. I was especially anxious to see Mr. 
Arnold White, the representative and active manager of Baron Hirsch in his project 
for the colonization of the Jews. His visits and investigations in Russia in furtherance 
of this scheme had been made since my departure on leave; and indeed, the full de- 
velopment of the Russian policy had come mthin the same period, so that a conference 
with him gave promise of information which would be instructive and useful in dealing 
with the subject. I wished to learn the spirit with which he had been received, the 
attitude of the Government toward the movement for the relief of the proscribed 
people, the general result of his inquiries and the character of the measures contem- 
plated. All of these points, it was manifest, would have a direct bearing upon the 
utility and efficacy of independent representations. 

]\Ir. White informed me that he had been favorably received by the members of the 
Russian Government, and that every facility had been furnished to him for the prose- 



152 TEEMINATION OE THE TEE AT Y OF 1832. 

cution of his inqiiiries and for the advancement of his work. He believes that the pol- 
icy which treats the Hebrews as a people separate and distinct from the great body of 
the Russian subjects, to be proscribed and prohibited from the major portion of the 
Empire, and to be restricted within a limited area under special conditions and special 
laws, had been adopted as a deliberate and settled purpose and was not likely to be 
abandoned. At the same time he believed from his observations that the methods of 
its execution might be tempered and that the time allowed for the removal of those 
ordered away from their existing domiciles might be extended. He had traversed the 
parts of the Empire where the Jews are chiefly concentrated; he had examined into 
their conditions, attributes, and tendencies; and he was able to give a favorable report 
of their disposition and capabilities. Contrary to the representations made in some 
quarters, he insisted that the Jewish agricultm-al communities in Russia presented 
creditable and successful results, and that the Jewish occupants of land attested their 
inclination and their adaptability to agricultural pursuits. As the plan of colonization 
is based upon their willingness and capacity for farm labor, this was important testi- 
mony. 

Mr. White found much distress in the Jewish settlements. The great body of the 
people were poor, and the limitation of their activities under the Russian laws made 
the struggle of life all the harder. The summary expulsion of thousands who were 
living outside of the legal pale of settlement and who were compelled to take their 
choice between locating in districts already overcrowded with those of their race 
or removing from the Empire altogether aggravated the hardships. As to the manner 
in which these arbitrary expulsions were enforced, little was said in detail. Mr. White 
had found himself exposed to some public censure in England because he had depre- 
cated violent criticism and had indicated that some of the current reports of severities 
were exaggerated. He stated, in explanation of his attitude, that he regarded himself 
as acting in semidiplomatic capacity; that he wanted to accomplish practical results 
in which the concurrence and cooperation of the Government were vital; and that 
he did not wish to embarrass this work by arousing a suspicious and unfriendly feeling 
on the part of those to whom he must look for aid. In the promotion of this scheme 
of colonization he proj)osed to return to Russia and spend some months in organizing 
committees of emigration and in arranging the essential machinery of operation. 

In some other quarters deeply concerned about the future of the Jews in Russia 
I find as hopeful a feeling respecting the practical fruits of Baron Hirsch's great pro- 
ject. In the munificent spirit which prompts it and in the great-hearted and large- 
minded nature of the conception it must command the sincere admiration of every 
friend of humanity. But magnificent as it is in its liberality and broad as it is in its 
scope, it is questioned whether it is equal to the exigencies of a problem which touches 
the welfare of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people. I was told in London that even at its 
best this project could not provide for more than 25,000 people a year. Without hav- 
ing undertaken any calculation, this seems to me a serious underestimate. Possibly, 
if applied only to those who could not help themselves at all, it would not be wide 
of the mark; but when self-help is united with philanthropic aid it must reach a much 
larger number. Even on the most favorable calculation, however, it must be limited 
in its operations. It is estimated that the increase of the Russian Jews is 3 per cent per 
annum, which, if there were no countervailing movement, would be an increase of 
.150,000 to 180,000 a year, and thus the problem would become constantly more 
difficult. 

Against this steady augmentation there has been within the past few months a large 
outflow. The number of Russian Jew emigrants passing through Charlottenberg, and 
thence sailing from Bremen and Hamburg was in the two months of July and August, 
about 23,000. That is entirely independent of the exodus through Odessa and the 
southern parts of the Empire, which, however, is not supposed to be large. 

The major portion of this emigration through Bremen and Hamburg goes to the 
United States. Germany does not permit the fugitives to remain within her domains, 
and English authorities do all that is within their power to direct them away from the 
British shores. The chief force of this movement of the Russian Jew has come within 
a comparatively short period. My dispatch No. 79 of February 28, reported a begin- 
ning of the withdrawal from Moscow and St. Petersburg, in apprehension of adverse 
measures. In my No. 89 sent on the eve of my departure on leave, the first known 
order of the year for the expulsion of a number of families from the two capitals were 
indicated. This was the open inauguration of a policy which has since assumed large 
proportions. 

The laws under which the expulsion of Jews living outside of the pale of settlement 
was directed have not for a considerable period been rigorously applied, and were 
now practically and palpably enforced for the first time in many years. When last 
year it was currently rumored that harsh and prescriptive measures had been or were 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 153 

about to be undertaken, this legation in common with others, reported that the Rus- 
sian Government denied and repelled these allegations. This answer, it is believed, 
was strictly in accord with the fact as it then was. The movement for the- renewal 
application of the old laws has taken practical form and force within a few months. 
I observe that the correspondent of the New York Times, who has been in Russia 
making a special investigation of the subject, indicates that its enforcement began in 
March. Information from other sources harmonizes with this statement. While 
before that time there had been some emigration, induced perhaps by the strenuous 
and precarious struggle for life in vocations which were limited and crowded, or by 
the apprehension of a severer policy, or by the harshness of irresponsible and subor- 
dinate officials, the great outflow which excites the attention and interest of the world 
did not commence until last spring. Since then it has gone on in a steady current, and 
it becomes a question of special importance to us whether this movement and the 
causes which lie behind it can be influenced and modified. 

I am desirous of meeting Col. Weber, the chau-man of the Emigration Commission, 
on the completion of his investigation in Russia, and on my arrival in London I opened 
correspondence with him for this purpose. But as he was moving about, the letter 
was delayed in reaching him, and it was only a few days before his departure that I 
received a message that he was obliged to sail for home before I could reach Berlin. 

Charles Emory Smith. 
(Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 744.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 24, 1891. 

Sir: I availed myself yesterday of the first appropriate occasion which had offered 
since the return of the minister of foreign affairs from his extended absence abroad 
to have a conversation with him touching the later aspects under which the attitude 
and action of the Russian Government respecting the Hebrews of the Empire pre- 
sent themselves. 

As indicated in previous^ dispatches, I have interested myself in the project of the 
Jewish Colonization Association, under the munificent inspiration and presidency 
of Baron Hirsh, for the colonization of Russian Hebrews in the Argentine Republic 
and in the disposition of the Russian Government toward it. There are two reasons 
for this special interest. In the first place, if the project meets with the sanction 
and cooperation of the Government it makes obligatory in good faith and presum- 
ably involves the amelioration of the measures against the Jews, so that their removal 
shall proceed only as fast as the association can make adequate provision for it. In 
the second place, it directs the emigration especially toward a destination where- 
ample land has been purchased and special preparations have been made to receive 
it. I therefore introduced the conversation with Mr. de Giers by referring to this 
project and said to him that I desired to talk with him concerning this movement 
for the colonization of Russian Hebrews and the general questions connected with 
it. For his convenience, as well as my own, I had reduced the points of what I 
wished to say in writing, though preserving the conversational form, and, if agreeable 
to him, I would read them. He intimated his approval of this suggestion, and I 
thereupon read the memorandum, of which the following is a translation: 

"I am greatly interested in the project of Baron Hirsh, of which Mr. Arnold White 
is the representative, for the colonization of Russian Hebrews. I am glad to hear that 
this project has met with a favorable reception on the part of the Government, and that 
practical measures are in train to carry it out. The subject is one of much concern for 
my country. The number of Russian Jews arriving in the United States has grown 
very greatly of late, and this fact naturally increases our interest in the question. 

"I have made special inqunies and have found that during the two months of July 
and August last 25,000 Hebrews who went from Russia embarked at the two ports of 
Bremen and Hamburg. I do not know the exact figure of the succeeding months, but 
it rnust be in the same proportion, The greater part of these emigrants went to the 
United States. The number of Russian Jews landing in our country considerably 
exceeds 5,000 a month. To feel some solicitude as to this great influx of people who 
are destitute, and without preparations for the new conditions, is entirely natural. 
Upto this time the liberality^ of the American people, chiefly of the Hebrews of the 
United^ States, has been sufficient to provide this army of immigrants with what their 
immediate necessities demanded. But if the immigration should continue in the same 
proT)ortion it would impose a burden beyond the resources of the benevolent societies. 



154 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

To furnish shelter and work for such a number, constantly growing, would be difficult 
if not impossible. Besides this inundation would derange the conditions of labor and 
distm-b its market. 

"Yoin- excellency will recall that, in presenting a dispatch from Mr. Blaine last 
spring, I had the honor to bring to your attention the concern of the Government and 
people of the United States on this subject. From that time the question has become 
aggravated by reason of the increase of immigrants of which I have spoken. During 
my visit to my country last summer, the President expressed his views to me and 
charged me to communicate them in suitable terms to the Government of the Emperor. 
He said to me that he had a sincere feeling of friendship for Russia, and cherished a deep 
sense of gratitude for the great service which Russia had rendered to the United States. 
When he felt it a duty to refer to the measures of Russia against the Jews, he expressed 
the desire to approach the question from the standpoint of a true friend who earnestly 
wished well to this country. It was, however, impossible to be indifferent to measures 
which compelled a large number of Russian Hebrews to seek a refuge in the United 
States. The effects of these measures were not limited to Russia, but are felt in our 
country, and apart from the considerations of humanity, these results make it a ques- 
tion of immediate interest to us. When the acts of one nation in expelling a class of 
its own people directly affect another friendly nation, the President felt that there is 
an obligation to take this effect into consideration. He hoped that the Government of 
Russia would find that its own best interests were served in mitigating the measures 
which entailed the practical banishment of so large a number of people; and if the 
Government felt unable to abandon these measures, the President hoped that it would 
at least be disposed to modify them, so that the removal might be extended over a long 
period. Thus the hardships would be diminished, and better provision could be 
made for those who seek an asylum in another land." 

Mr. De Giers listened to the reading of this memorandum with much apparent inter- 
est and once or twice interrupted it with inquiries or suggestions. He thought the 
statements of the number of Russian Jews sailing from Hamburg and Bremen and 
landing in the United States must be exaggerated; but I assured him. that they were 
derived from entirely authentic sources. He returned afterwards to the question of 
figures, still expressing his surprise, and apparently there was an implied recognition 
of the force of a representation based on such grounds. He said that there was no 
expulsion or banishment of Jews from the Empire. I had explained that while this 
was true in the literal sense of the term, the emigration was the effect of "measures 
which compelled so large a number to seek refuge in the United States," and I again 
indicated this point. Mr. De Giers responded that Christians as well as Jews had emi- 
grated, and they had gone under the attraction of what he described that America is 
an El Dorado where they would all be well off. I replied that the great increase in 
the Jewish emigration to which I referred had come at the same time with the expul- 
sion of Jews from Moscow and other places within the Empire. 

Mr. De Giers remarked, in conclusion, that the subject came within the province of 
the Minister of the Interior, and he would confer with that minister. He asked me for 
a copy of the verbal note which I had read, and of which a translation is given above, 
and I have to-day sent it to him. I inclose a copy of the form in which it was placed 
in his hands. 

I have, etc., Charles Emory Smith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 363.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Blaine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, April 12, 1892. 

Sir: The prospect of an enlarged emigration of Jews from Russia during the coming 
spring and summer has been a subject of consideration here and concern abroad. It 
has been given out through the Jewish Aid Committee of Berlin that an outflow of 
400,000 was to be expected. It is probable that, even without restrictions, these would 
have proved to be exaggerated figures, but at the same time, with the effect of the 
Russian policy concerning the Jews on the one hand, and with the influence of the 
public reports of colonization projects on the other, there was every reason to antici- 
pate an increased movement. 

The representative of Baron Hirsh, Mr. Arnold White, has been here for some weeks, 
partly for the purpose of advancing the measures essential to the scheme of colonization 
and partly with the object of checking this large immediate emigration. It was 
naturally felt that, if great numbers of Hebrews should pour out now before the colo- 



TERMINATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 155 

nies in Argentine are prepared for their reception, and while their reception elsewhere 
was open to question, it would prejudice and embarrass the whole effort on their 
behalf. I was advised of these considerations, and in response to questions put to me 
I felt warranted by the recent legislation and attitude of our Government and people 
in concurring in the counsel against premature emigration. No action on my part 
was asked. There was simply a request to know whether authority would be given 
for a reference to the American Legation as approving the advice against an excessive 
immediate exodus. 

It was proposed to send out messengers who should spread this advice, and, though 
some obstacles were interposed, it is believed that the plan was at least in part carried 
out. 

Recently a factor of great importance has intervened in the matter. You have 
doubtless learned through the public prints that the German Government has issued 
orders closing the frontier against the entrance of Russian Jewish emigrants. I am 
advised that it is not improbable, though not yet certain, that the Austro-Hungarian 
Government will take the same course. It is stated in defense of this action that this 
class of emigrants are not received in England, and as objection is made as to their 
entrance into the United States, they are thrown back and become a charge upon 
Germany. Should the new order be stringently enforced, it will effectually prevent 
a large outflow before the plans of colonization shall be perfected, but it is supposed 
that in many cases means of evading it will be found. 

All this leaves it uncertain whether the emigration of Russian Jews will be as large 
or larger than last year. Probably the most intelligent opinion is that it will be some- 
what, but not much larger, but this is only conjecture at the best. 

Charles Emory Smith. 

(Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 379.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. Wurts. 

Department op State, 

Washington, August 23, 1892. 

Sir: I inclose herewith a statement with accompanying certificates made to this 
department by Mrs. Jennie Goldstein, of New York City, concerning the alleged 
arrest and imprisonment of her husband, Jacob Goldstein, at Kharkov, Russia, on 
the ground that he "is amenable to militia duties." 

The records of the department confirm this statement of Messrs. C. B. Richard & 
Co., that Mr. Goldstein received a passport, No. 35320, from this department. It was 
issued February 23, 1892, and sent to Messrs. Richard & Co., to be forwarded. From 
Mr. Goldstein's application it appears that he was bom at Tszelecz, in Russia, July 
4, 1862; emigrated to this country in 1879, and was naturalized before the superior 
court of the city of New York, October 8, 1888, his certificate of naturalization having 
been duly produced with his application for a passport. 

I will thank you to apply in the proper quarter for information concerning the 

reported arrest of Mr. Goldstein and the nature of the charges against him. Should 

his case fall within the purview of the standing instructions of your legation, you 

will take such action as may be necessary and proper to protect Mr. Goldstein's interest. 

I am, etc., 

John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 526.) 



Mrs. Goldstein to Mr. Foster. 

New York, August 17, 1892. 
Honorable Sir: On February 23, 1892, one Jacob Goldstein left this port by 
steamer Spree of the Bremen line. On the same day, the said Jacob Goldstein paid to 
Messrs. C. B. Richard & Co., bankers, No. 61 Broadway, New York City, certain 
moneys to procure for the said Jacob Goldstein a passport, and at the same time deliv- 
ered to them his citizenship papers, all of which will more fully appear by the cer- 
tificate of the said Messrs. Richard & Co., herewith inclosed; that said passport was 
issued to the said Jacob Goldstein, and the same was, together with his citizenship 

Eapers, sent to the said Jacob Goldstein by the said Messrs. Richard & Co., and as I 
ave been informed the same was received by the said Jacob Goldstein upon his 



156 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

arrival on the other side; that a few days after his arrival he, the said "Jacob Gold- 
stein," an American citizen, "was arrested by some Government (officer) at Kharkov 
Russia," and his passport and citizenship papers taken away from him, and still is 
detained at said place. 

As I have been informed, the cause of the detention of the said Jacob Goldstein is 
that the Russian Government claims that the said Jacob Goldstein is amenable to 
militia duties. 

Inclosed please find two photographs of the said Jacob Goldstein for the purpose of 
identification, also a letter from the Hon. Charles Smith, the present alderman of the 
eighth assembly district, in which the said Jacob Goldstein has resided for over 12 
years, also a letter from the lodge that the said Jacob Goldstein is a member of. 

I am the wife of the said Jacob Goldstein and reside with the children, of which I am 
the mother and the said Jacob Goldstein the father, at No. 43 Delancey Street, New 
York City. 

By giving this your earliest attention, 

I remain, etc., Jennie Goldstein. 

N. B. — Please address all communications to Mr. Philip Gratz, jr., No. 333 Grand 
Street, New York City, and oblige, etc., 

Jennie Goldstein. 
(Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 526-527.) 



Mr. Smith to Mr. Crawford. 

New York City, August 11, 1892. 
Hon. United States Consul to Russia: 

Dear Sir: Mr. Jacob Goldstein, a citizen of the United States, has been arrested 
in Kharkov, Russia, and is illegally detained there. He has his passport with him. 
He has a wife and children and mother here (New York City). You will perceive 
by the foregoing that he is illegally detained there, and is a breach of the treaty 
between these United States and Russia. He has been living in my district for 
over 12 years, and I have known him to be a good and loyal citizen. You will kindly 
look into this matter and secure the release of said Jacob Goldstein. By so doing 
you will confer a personal favor on. 
Yours, very truly, etc., 

Charles Smith, 
Alderman for Eighth Election District of the City of New Yorh. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 527.) 



New York, August 11, 1892. 
Hon. United States Consul to Kharkov, Russia. 

Dear Sir: This is to certify that Jacob Goldstein, who is illegally detained in 
your city, is a member of our congregation (the Congregation Adosholum Uriemtzer), 
of New York City. He is a citizen of these United States, and we have known him 
to be a good and loyal citizen. He has a mother, wife, and children here. 
Yours, etc., 

A. Weinstein, President. 
N. Beaurtties, Secretary. 
(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 527.) 



New York, August 12, 1892. 
To whom it may concern: 

This is to certify that Jacob Goldstein purchased of us, on February 20, 1892, one 
steerage ticket to Bremen per steamer Spree, sailing February 23, and on the same 
day paid us the amount for a United States passport, which we procured for him 
from Washington and mailed to him poste restante Bremen. 

C. B. Richard & Co. 

(Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 527.) 



TERMINATIOISI- OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 157 

Mr. Wurts to Mr. Foster. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 7, 1892. 

Sir: Your instruction, No. 212, of the 23d ultimo, on the subject of the reported 
arrest and detention at Kharkov of Jacob Goldstein was duly received, and I at once 
represented the case to the Russian foreign office with the request that an investigation 
be made and information thereof be furnished me. 

In all probability the cause of the arrest will prove to be as surmised, that Goldstein 
"is amenable to militia (that is, military) duties." 

As you are aware, this legation has had to deal with a number of cases of this char- 
acter,' the result of which has, if my memory does not betray me, been the same, a 
refusal of the Russian Government to waive its light to punish a former subject on his 
venturing again within its jurisdiction for offense committed prior to his naturalization 
as the citizen or subject of a foreign state. The arguments used by us have not made 
the slightest impression here, and seem to be rather exhausted. I shall of course do all 
in my power mth them, but must respectfully beg the department, if possible, to 
furnish me with some new ones, in preparation for the response to the Russian Govern- 
ment that Goldstein is charged with and liable to punishment for escaping abroad^ when 
close upon the age for military service, in order to evade that service by becoming an 
American citizen. 

The penalty for this offense is exile to Siberia, but while this Government has closely 
adhered to the principle involved in cases such as this is supposed to be, it has never 
been applied to an American citizen. The last case of the kind, which is on file at the 
department, was that of Kempinski, in 1889, the result of which was that no concession 
was made by the Russian Government, and Kempinski was condemned, but released 
on his successfid petition for the clemency of the Emperor. It might be well for the 
friends of Goldstein to ad visa him to prepare to follow Kempinski 's example. 
I have, etc., 

George W. Wurts, 
Charge d\Affaires ad interim. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 527-528.) 



Mr. Wurts to Mr. Foster. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 17, 1892. 
Sir: Referring to my dispatch No. 239, of the 7th ultimo, in relation to the case 
of the alleged citizen of the United States, Jacob Goldstein, held in arrest at Kharkov, 
I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy and translation of a note from 
the imperial foreign office in response to my communication on the subject, by which 
it will be seen that there is a conflict of testimony as to the identity of the person 
in question, the Russian authorities affirming that he is not Jacob Goldstein, but 
Yankel Zlotow, and that he is accused of coming to Russia with a false passport. 
Mr. Heenan, our consul at Odessa, has sent me copies of his correspondence in this 
case with the authorities at Kharkov, which, it appears, has also been transniitted 
tp the department. In this correspondence Goldstein states that he is a native of 
Germany,^ that he emigrated when very young to the United States, and that he 
came to Kharkov on business last June. He does not state whether this was his 
first visit or not to Russia. The inspector of the prison points out, however, in his 
letter to Mr. Heenan that Goldstein speaks Russian fluently, which is a very sus- 
picious circumstance. Awaiting fm-ther instructions from you in the matter, 
I am, etc., 

George W. Wurts, 
Charge d^ Affaires ad interim. 
(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 528.) 



Mr. Chichhine to Mr. Wurts. 

Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Department op the Home Relations, 

St. Petersburg, October SjlS, 1892. 

Mr. Charge d'Afpaires: You addressed yom-self to the imperial ministry in order 
to know what reasons had determined the imperial authorities to arrest, at Kharkov, 
Mr. Goldstein. 



158 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

I have, in consequence, the honor to inform you that the individual in question who 
pretends to be an American citizen, is accused, by the terms of article 977 of the penal 
code, of having arrived in Russia with a false passport, his real name being Yankel 
Zlotow. 

Accept, etc., 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 529.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. White. 

Department of State, 

Washington, November 7, 1892. 

Sir: I have received Mr. Wiu-ts's No. 249, of October 17 last, in regard to the case of 
Jacob Goldstein, an American citizen, imprisoned at Harkov (Kharkov). 

The statem^ents of the reply of the Russian foreign office appear to be a repetition of 
the allegations made by the authorities of Harkov in their communication to the 
United States consul at Odessa, dated September 11/28, 1892, copy of which was sent 
to yom' legation with the other correspondence by Mr. Heenan. 

It is noted that, by the admission of the Russian authorities themselves, Mr. Gold- 
stein's passport and certificate of naturalization have been sent to New York for 
investigation. 

This proceeding natui'ally occasions some surprise, and is only explicable on the 
conjecture that the Russian authorities are ignorant of the Federal character of these 
papers. The Government of the United Sta.es is the sole judge of the competence and 
validity of the passport which it issues and of the evidence of national citizenship of 
which it is granted. It does not pertain to the authorities of New York to examine 
the validity of a United States passport. 

If any question were raised as to the identity of the bearer or the legality of his 
naturalization this Government would be happy to investigate any offered testimony 
throwing doubt on the case, upon the request to that end, through the proper channel. 
So far as concerns any charge against the prisoner of fraudulent impersonation of the 
Jacob Goldstein to whom the passport purports to have been issued it is proper to 
say that the evidence now furnished to this department states that Jacob Goldstein's 
mother, wife, and children reside in New York City, while the mother of Yankel 
Zlotow, the fugitive with whom Goldstein is confounded, still resides in Harkov, 
and it would seem fails to identify her alleged son. 

The application upon which passport No. 35320 was granted to Jacob Goldstein, or 
Zheikop Goldschtein, as he signs his name, avers his birth at Cszelecz, in Russia, 
on or about July 4, 1862, and his naturalization, before the superior court of the city 
of New York, October 8, 1888. The place of birth so given conflicts with Mr. Gold- 
stein's allegation of German birth made in his petition addressed to Mr. Heenan, who 
will be directed to make inquiry in this regard. 

The name Cszelecz appears to be Hungarian or Galician, but the town is not iden- 
tified on any map in this department. 

lam, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 529.) 



Mr. Foster to Mr. White. 

Department op State, 
Washington, November 26, 1892. 

Sir: Referring to my instructions No. 12, of the 7th instant, in relation to the case 
of Jacob Goldstein, detained at Harkov on charges reported in Mr. Wurta's No. 249, 
of October 17 last, I have now to inform you that Baron Schilling, Russian chargi 
d'affaires ad interim, called, informally, this morning, on the Second Assistant Secre- 
tary, and exhibited to him Mr. Goldstein's passport, No. 35320, issued by this depart- 
ment February 23, 1892, with a view to ascertaining its genuineness. Baron Schilling 
at the same time produced the original certificate of naturalization before the superior 
court of the city of New York, October 8, 1888, with a view to making like inquiry 
in regard thereto. 

Mr. Adee advised Baron Schilling that oflBcial response would be made to such 
inquiries if the request to that end were addressed by the legation to the Secretary of 



TEKMHSTATIOlsr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 159 

State. As a matter of fact, the passport appeared to be genuine, and the certificate 
of naturalization to agree with the department's record, upon which the passport had 
been issued, but he, Mr. Adee, could not competently declare those facts. 

It thus appears that instead of the passport being "sent to New York for investi- 
gation," the Russian legation here has been intrusted with the inquiry. 

No previous instance is recalled of such a proceeding on the part of the Russian 
Government. I should regret were it to form a precedent. The passports issued 
by the Secretary of State, under the seal of this department, being prima facie evi- 
dence of the facts therein certified, the purpose for which they are issued_ would be 
defeated were foreign authorities at liberty to disregard them until certified anew 
by the issuing authority. Their examination and viee is properly the function of 
the legation of the United States in the country where the bearer may chance to be. 

In several recent instances, notably in Austria and Turkey, this Government has 
had occasion to remonstrate against the inconvenience and restriction of personal 
liberty to which the holders of United States passports have been subjected by the 
dilatory action of the local authorities detaining them and sending their passports 
to the American legation for attestation. In the present case, by forwarding the 
passport and certificate of naturalization to this country for a like purpose, the holder, 
Mr. Goldstein, would seem to have been needlessly restrained of his liberty for sev- 
eral weeks longer than he would have been had application been seasonably made 
to your legation for the desired information. Moreover, the occasion for the inquiry 
is not apparent, for the ascertainment of the genuineness of the passport and certifi- 
cate of natm-alization granted to Jacob Goldstein neither proves nor disproves his 
alleged identity with Yankel Zlotow, of Harkov, nor establishes whether the present 
holder of these papers himself acquired them lawfully as Jacob Goldstein or is falsely 
impersonating the individual to whom thej^ were issued. 

As already intimated in my instruction No. 12, of the 7th instant, this Government 
stands ready to cooperate in the investigation of any case where reasonable evidence 
of the fraudulent use of a United States passport may be forthcoming. You may say 
to the minister of foreign affairs that where there may be good ground to believe that 
a passport has been forged or tampered with, or is held by another than the person to 
whom it was lawfully issued, your legation will cheerfully render assistance so far as 
an examination of the authority of the document is concerned, and will, in case of 
need, refer the matter to this department, but that otherwise it is the just expectation 
of the Government that its passports will be duly respected abroad as prima facie 
evidence of the facts therein stated, and that its validity is only to be traversed by 
competent proof. 

For your further information I inclose a copy of Mr. Goldstein's application to this 
department for a passport. 

I am, etc., John W. Poster. 

(Foreign Relation, 1892, pp. 530-531.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Foster. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 15, 1892. 

Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 12, of November 7, regarding the submission 
of Jacob Goldstein's passport to the Russian legation at Washington rather than to 
the American legation here, I went the day after receiving it to the foreign office and 
called the attention of Mr. Chichkine to the subject. He explained that the matter 
came up during the interim between Mr. Smith's departure and my arrival, and that 
it was therefore thought best to refer it directly to Washington. 

Upon this I resented your view of the delay thus caused, and of the injury 
involved, not merely in the case of the person claiming to be Jacob Goldstein, but in 
other cases should this novel action of the Russian Government be considered as a 
precedent. 

He received my statement in a very satisfactory manner, assuring me that in future 
such cases would be referred to the American Legation here and not to the State 
Department at Washington. 

I have, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 531.) 

19831—11 11 



160 TEBMIISrATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Mr. White to Mr. Foster. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 16, 1892. 

Sir: As already stated in my dispatch No. 21, relative to the passport of Jacob 
Goldstein, I confined myself in my interview with Mr. Chichkine at the foreign office 
to the point I was instructed to urge, namely, the injury done or likely to be done by 
forwarding passports taken from suspected persons to the Russian legation at Wash- 
ington rather than to the American legation at St. Petersburg. 

The question regarding the rights and present position of the person detained at 
Kharkov and claiming to be Goldstein, I thought it not best to raise until I could 
secure additional facts. 

This, indeed, is the only course which promises anything for the person now detained 
at Kharkov, claiming to be Jacob Goldstein, but declared by the local authorities to 
be Yankel Zlotow, who has thus far avoided military service. 

As the case now stands it presents the following difficulties, which, as the case is 
new to me, I trust that you will excuse my recapitulating. 

In his letter to our consul at Odessa, dated July 20-August 1, 1892, the person under 
arrest gives the country of his birth as Germany, but his application for a passport 
six months before the applicant swore that he was born in Russia. 

In the letter above referred to the person under arrest also says that he is unable to 
fix the year of his arrival in America, because he was taken there when a child; but 
the person who applied for and received the Goldstein passport swore that he went to 
America in July, 1879, at the age of 17 years. 

In addition to these troublesome discrepancies in the two statements claiming to 
be made by the same man only a few months apart, the letter from the prison authori- 
ties at Kharkov to our consul at Odessa, dated September 16-28, 1892, alleges that 
the person under arrest has been detected in feigning such knowledge or want of 
knowledge of the Russian and other languages as might give color to a fraudulent 
impersonation. And the letter also conveys the idea that the Russian authorities 
have no doubt as to the identity of the detained person with Yankel Zlotow. 

As an application for his release to the foreign office would, if made at present, 
certainly be wrecked upon the above facts and allegations, I at once telegraphed 
Consul Heenan, at Odessa, asking him to wire me any new information he might 
possess on the subject or that he might be able to secure by wire or mail from Kharkov. 
I also wrote him fully authorizing him to send to Kharkov a discreet and careful man 
to make inquiries and report on the case, suggesting the name of a gentleman especially 
recommended to me by our consul general at St. Petersburg, but leaving Consul 
Heenan free to choose any other person whom he might think more fit. 

I suggested in my letter that very careful examination be made as to the testimony 
identifying the person in possession of the Goldstein passport as Yankel Zlotow, and 
especially as to the statement of the person arrested that Zlotow's mother failed to 
recognize the said arrested person as her son, and also as to the probability or possi- 
bility of collusion between the mother of Zlotow and the arrested person. 

To my telegram I have just received answer by wire that the consul has no new 
facts in the case, but that he is telegraphing Kharkov. 

From my letter and from the special messenger sent to Kharkov I hope to secure 
some facts which will enable me to present the matter at the foreign office here with 
more hope of a favorable result than the facts at present before me enable me to 
anticipate. 

I shall continue to give constant attention to the matter in the hope of remedying 
any injustice to an American citizen on one hand and of preventing any prostitution 
of American citizenship on the other. 

I have, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 531-532.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 19, 1893. 
Sir: Referring to my No. 22 and previous dispatches relating to Jacob Goldstein, I 
have the honor to state that a letter fi-om Mr. Consul Heenan, at Odessa, informs me 
that the local court at Kharkov has decided in Goldstein's favor, but that he "took 
French leave" last December, has not been since heard of, and that his present 
whereabouts are unknown. 

I am, sir, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 541.) 



TERMHsTATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 161 

Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 19, 1893. 

Sir: I have the honor to submit the cases of David Waldenberg, and of his son 
Jacob, based on documents received this morning. They apply for new passports 
under the following circumstances: 

It appears that David, the father, went to the United States 42 years ago; that 
after five years' residence he was naturalized, and that he finally left the United States 
in 1864. He has now resided in Poland nearly 30 years, and it is clear from the 
accompanying papers that he has no intention of returning to resume the rights and 
duties of an American citizen. 

As to his son Jacob, the documents show that he was born in Poland in July, 1872; 
that he has never been in America, and, although he swears, in making his claim for 
citizenship, that he intends to "return" to the United States within two years, his 
letter shows clearly that he has no such intention. 

Fm-ther light is thrown upon the young man's case by the fact that although he has 
finished a course of study in a German university, and affixes to his name the title of 
doctor of philosophy, he does not appear to have prepared himself for exercising the 
rights and duties of an American citizen by learning the English language; both his 
letter and that of his father are sent to me in a translation from Warsaw. 

It will be observed that the father is not molested. Our consul, Mr. Rawicz, speaks 
of him in very high terms as "an honest business man, well liked in the community, 
and really a square and upright man." 

As to the son Jacob, whom the authorities propose to exclude from Russia, the main 
difficulty in the case doubtless comes partly from the general tendency to discrimi- 
nate against Jews, but mainly from the question arising as regards his evasion of 
military service. 

I have already asked through the foreign office that the family of Mr. Waldenberg, 
including his sons Isidore and Jacob and his daughter Emily, shall be allowed to remain 
with him, stating the case as strongly as possible in their favor, asking that this per- 
mission may be made permanent or that as regards Jacob it may be continued at least 
two years, he having sworn that within that time he intends to take up his residence 
in the United States. 

I need hardly say that in so far as any action taken against Waldenberg and his 
family may be actuated by prejudice of race or religion, my whole nature revolts at 
it, and my sympathies are deeply with him, but the question which presents itself 
is whether there is not here an attempted prostitution of American citizenship, an 
attempt to secure its immunities and privileges without the discharge of its duties. 

The Russians know as well as we that were this worthy man a German and had he 
returned to the country of his nativity at the date of his return here he would, over 25 
years ago, have lost his right to claim American citizenship; they also know the other 
weak points in the case, and especially that the animus revertendi is conspicuously 
absent from it. 

This being the case, although my predecessor, Mr. Smith, granted passports to both 
these claimants two years ago, I have decided, while asking the ministry of foreign 
affairs to use its good offices in their favor as above stated, at the same time to ask the 
department for instructions. 

I have, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 541-542.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 22, 1893. 
Sir: On May 10 I received a letter from one Joseph Glowacki, dated at Kempen, 
Province of Posen, Germany, making a statement to the effect that being an American 
citizen in the employ of a manufacturing establishment at Gzerstockowa, Government 
of Petikow, Poland, he had been summarily expelled on eight hours' notice by the 
local police; thrown into prison and kept there four days, from which he was only 
released on his signing an agreement not to return to Russia under pain of banishment 
to Siberia, and then taken over the Austrian frontier and set free. He declares that 
the only reason assigned for the treatment he has received is a charge made by a 
drunken employee, who had been discharged from the factory, to the effect that he 



162 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

had spoken disrespectfully of the Emperor. This he says that he had never done and 
that all the other workmen would testify that they had never heard him utter a dis- 
loyal sentiment. He further says that he has been obliged to leave behind him his 
aged mother, of whom he is the only support. 

The letter is well written in fairly good English, and while of course I could know 
nothing as yet of the other side of the case, it raised in my mind so strong a presump- 
tion in his favor that I at once addressed a note to the foreign office urging the earliest 
possible examination of the case and the young man's speedy restoration to his situa- 
tion and to the support of his mother, if the facts are found as stated. At the same 
time I wrote to Glowacki, informing him as to the steps which had been taken here, 
but took the liberty of suggesting the question whether in case the matter presents 
any doubtful features and the decision upon it is delayed he might not well reenter 
into the enjoyment of his rights and the discharge of his duties as an American citizen 
within the country of his adoption. The fact that his letter is so well expressed and 
that his employers think so well of him that they are holding his place open for him 
would seem to indicate abilities on which he could rely to secure him a situation quite 
as well remunerated in the United States. 

The department shall be informed regarding any further developments of interest 
in the case. 

I am, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, pp 542-543.) 



Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. 

Department of State, 
Washington, June 3, 1893. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 97, of the 19th ultimo, report- 
ing that Jacob Goldstein had been acquitted by the local court at Kharkov, but that 
he had, in December last, escaped, and had not since been heard of. 
The cape thus appears to be removed from further consideration. 
I am, sir, etc., 

W. Q. Gresham. 
(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 543.) 



Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. 

Department op State, 
Washington, June 6, 189S. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 99, of the 19th ultimo, in regard 
to the application for passports made in behalf of David Waldenberg and Jacob, his son. 

On the facts as stated, all presumption of conservation of right to continued protec- 
tion as a naturalized citizen of the United States is conspicuously neeatived in the case 
of the father, David Waldenberg, he having resumed and maintained permanent 
domicile in the country of his original allegiance; as for the eldest son, Jacob, his right 
to protection after coming of age has not been established by conclusive evidence of 
intention to come to the United States after attaining the age of 21 years in July next. 
If he makes his purpose in that regard clear by taking the necessary steps to effect it 
by actual removal to the United States, here to dwell and perform the duties incumben t 
on a good citizen, he may have a passport to come to the United States, not otherwise. 

The dates of the births of the other children, Isidore and Emily, do not appear in 
your dispatch, but, inferring that they are minors, they should have the benefit of the 
doubt, and be secured recognition of the status of American citizenship under section 
1993, Revised Statutes, until they come of age and become competent to exercise 
the option of domicile which belongs to them. 

In this connection. I inclose for your information copy of my instruction No. 84, of 
April 28 last., to the minister to Japan, in regard to the applications for passports of 
Alex and Basil Powers, both of Russian origin. 

I am, sir, etc., W. Q. Gresham. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, pp. 543-554.) 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 163 

Mr. Webb to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 25, 1893. 

Sir: Referring to dispatch No. 100 of this legation, I have the honor to inform you 
that a note bearing date June 29, from the imperial foreign office, informed this 
legation that Joseph Glowacki woudl be permitted to return to the Empire, but could 
not again inhabit the village of district Chenstockova, from which he had been 
expelled. This concession was as much as could be asked for, it being hardly to be 
expected that the return in triumph of one of the proscribed class (Glowacki is a 
Hebrew) to the scene whence he had been summarily ejected would be permitted, 
in view of the bad effect it would have on the morale of the community. 

A few days ago, however, I received a letter from Joseph Glowacki, dated from a 
point in Germany, near the frontier, in which he states that after five days of continual 
effort to enter Russia, during which time he was kept constantly moving from station 
to station along the frontier, his passport was taken from him, the permit thereon 
inscribed under orders from the minister of the interior blotted out, and he was once 
more ejected from the Empire. His letter stated, as before, that his mother, 78 years 
of age, of whom he was the sole support, was ill and in great want, and he only asked 
to be able to reach her in order to take her away from Russia once and for all. 

I immediately addressed a note on the subject to the imperial foreign office and_ in 
a personal interview with Mr. Chichkine received assurance that instant attention 
would be paid to the note and permission for Glowacki to cross the frontier accorded, 
unless new and unfavorable evidence in his case had come to light. 

I shall inform the department of further developments in the case. 
I am, etc., 

G. Creighton Webb, 
Charge d^ Affaires ad Interim. 

(Foreign Regulations, 1893, p. 544-545.) 



Mr. Webb to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 5, 1893. 
Sir: Referring to dispatches Nos. 100 and 129 of this legation regarding the case 
of Joseph Glowacki, an American citizen, I have the honor to state that the matter 
is at last satisfactorily settled. 

You will remember that Glowacki, after having been expelled from the Empire, 
received permission, through the intercessions of Mr. White, to return to Russia, 
and that at the frontier, while seeking to avail himself of this permission, the order 
inscribed on his passport by which only he could be enabled to do so was erased by 
the officer in command at that post. _ • 

To-day, in response to several communications, and as the result of several inter- 
views, and after a delay of only two weeks from the time that the matter was brought 
to its notice, I received from the foreign office full permission for Glowacki to reenter 
Russia, together with a handsome expression of regret that the misunderstanding 
at the frontier had taken place. I have issued a new passport to Glowacki, which 
has been duly indorsed at the foreign office, and this would seem to close the case. 
I am, etc., 

G. Creighton Webb, 
Charge d' Affaires ad interim. 



Mr. Adee to Mr. White. 

Department of State, 
Washington, September 21, 1893. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Webb's No. 134, of the 5th instant, 
reporting that Mr. Joseph Glowacki has been again granted permission to enter Russia. 
The department is gratified to learn that the case is thus closed. 
I am, etc., 

Alvey a. Adee, Acting Secretary. 
(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 545.) 



164 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Wurts to Mr. Wharton. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, June 16, 1892. 
Sir: I have the honor to inclose you herewith a translation of the law adopted by 
the Imperial Government regarding the emigration of Hebrews from Russia under 
the project of Baron Hirsch, which received the supreme sanction of the Emperor on 
the 8-20th ultimo. 

I have, etc., George W. Wurts, 

Charge d^ Affaires ad interim. 
(Foreign Relations, 1892, p. 387.) 



[Inclosure.] 
STATUTES OR REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEES ON EMIGRATION. 

1. The committees on emigration instituted by the present statutes have for their 
object to contribute to the emigration of Russian Israelites by their transplantation 
in other countries. 

2. There will be created a central committee at St. Petersburg, which will be 
assisted in various cities of the Empire by local committees, whose formation will 
proceed successively, following the need and the previous consent of the minister 
of the interior. The central committee, as well as the local committees, shall work 
under the supervision of the Government, which can suppress and annul all their 
arrangements and their activity, with all the consequences, if the minister of the 
interior finds.it necessary. 

3. The central committee is under the jurisdiction of the ministry of the interior, 
and is placed under the supervision of the department of police. It is composed of 
Beyen to eleven members designated with the consent of the minister of the interior, 
by the president of the Jewish Colonization Association. The minister of the interior 
can at any time require the resignation of those members of the central committee 
whose activity does not respond to the views of the Government. 

4. In case of the death, or the retirement for any reason, of a member of the com- 
mittee, his successor will be designated in the manner indicated in the preceeding 
article. 

5. The central committee will choose from among its members a president, vice 
president, treasurer, and secretary. These appointments are made for one year. 
The officers are eligible to reelection. 

6. Three members at least of the committee designated for one year by their col- 
leagues and reeligible form an executive committee charged with the management of 
affairs and the necessary relations with the Government in everything which concerns 
the enterprise, as well as with the direction of railroads for the free transportaion of 
emigrants to the frontier. 

7. The divisions of the central committee are determined by an absolute majority 
of the members present. The presence of at least four members of this committee 
is necessary for the validity of its deliberations. In case of an equal division of votes, 
the vote of the president decides. In case of the absence of the vice president, the 
oldest member present will preside. 

8. The decisions of the central committee are put in force only after the authoriza- 
tion of the minister of the interior. If the minister, within a month of the reception 
of the decisions, shall not have notified the central committee of their annulment, 
they can be put into execution. The central committee must submit every year 
to the minister of the interior a report of what has been done. 

9. The central committee, being in constant relations with the Jewish Colonization 
Association, should keep the latter informed of its work and transmit to the said 
association the proces verbal of the sessions, as well as the sessions of the executive 
committee. The central committee receives the proces verbal of the local com- 
mittees 

10. The president of the Jewish Colonization Association can at any time charge 
one or two delegates to verify upon the ground the work of the committees and to assist 
at their sessions. The designation of these delegates must be submitted to the previous 
approbation of the minister of the interior. 

11. The services of Jhe members of the committee are gratuitous. 

12. The central committee organizes its bureaus accordiag to the needs of the service. 

13. Before the commencement of operations of the central committee, the Jewish 
Colonization Association shall lodge 100,000 rubles in the State Bank in St. Petersburg, 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 165 

in deposit for the minister of the interior. Out of this capital shall be defrayed, by 
order of the minister of the interior, all expenses which may be incurred in connection 
with the return and repatriation in Russia, on account of the Government, of Jews who 
shall have emigrated with the assistance of the above committee. The sum expended 
out of the above 100,000 rubles shall be completed by the Jewish Colonization Asso- 
ciation, on the demand of the minister of the mterior, when the available balance shall 
not exceed 25,000 rubles. The interest on the above capital constitutes the property 
of the association, and shall be payable to its authorized agents. 

14. The local committees are under the supervision of the governors or persons who 
are designated by them for this purpose. 

15. All of the arrangements of the local committees are brought to the knowledge of 
the governors, who can arrest their execution while submitting them to the approba- 
tion and authorization of the minister of the interior. 

16. The members of the local committees are named by the central committee for a 
term and under conditions to be determined by it. The nominations must be sub- 
mitted to the previous approbation of the minister of the interior. 

The minister of the interior can at any time require the resignation of members of 
the local committees whose activity does not respond to the views of the Government. 

17. In places where the elements necessary for the formation of a local committee 
are not found, the central committee can name one or two delegates charged with the 
functions of the local committees. The method of the designation, as well as the revo- 
cation of these delegates, is subject to the provisions of articles 13-15. 

18. The services of members of the local committees are gratuitous. The delegates 
mentioned in the preceding article can, in case of need, receive compensation. 

19. If a committee is formed in a province, its jurisdiction covers the whole extent 
of the province. In case of the formation of several committees or of the designation 
of two or more delegates in the same province, the range of the activity of each of them 
will be determined by the governor. 

20. The central committee, as well as the local committees, are authorized to receive 
donations and legacies in view of the object defined by article 1 of the present statutes, 
but on condition that they must be in ready money or in paper bearing interest. 

21. The central committee and the local committee shall have seals bearing the name 
of the committee with the inscription "Colonization of Russian Israelites." 

22 . Employment in the commissions gives to Israelites no right or privilege in respect 
to the choice of their place of habitation. 

23. The direction of the Jewish Colonization Association will indicate successively 
to the central committee the number of emigrants who can be sent to the frontier in a 
specific period, and the central committee will divide this number between the differ- 
ent localities in accord with the Jewish Colonization Association. 

24. The local committees, as well as the delegates of the central committee, will 
prepare for each person desiring to emigrate a sheet conforming to the model appended, 
which is subject to modification. 

No. — — Month. Year. 

I. Head of family. 
(a) First and surname. 
(6) Age. 

(c) Place of inscription. 

Id) Military conscription district in which registered, 
(e) Present place of abode. 
(/) Former abode and time of residence therein. 
{g) Occupation. 

0i) Has such occupation latterly served as a means of livelihood, 
(i) Amount of yearly earnings. 
(j) Means for traveling and purchase of land. 
Ih) Amount of money. 
(Z) What relations or acquaintances he may have in Argentine Republic or other 

non-European countries, 
(m) Their names. 

II. Wife. 

Name, age, place of birth, occupation, how long married. 

III. Children. 

(a) Number of children, boys and girls. 

(6) Name, age, place of birth, occupation of each child-. 

(c) Military conscription district in which male children are registered. 



166 ■ TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

IV. 

Can the parents and children read and write. 

V. 

Do other members of the family live with and are supported by the head of the 
family? 

II. Remarks. 

(a) Respecting the answers supplied and particularly with regard to occupation. 
{h) Respecting the mental and physical capacities of each member of the family, 
condition of their health, etc. 

(c) The special aptitudes of a given person must be pointed out, and whether the 
person desirous of emigrating is capable of agricultural labor. 

(d) Whether the head of the family and his sons have performed military service. 
Signature of head of family . 

Signature of member of commission or of authorized agent. 
Remarks of government officials or institutions. 

25. Two copies of the sheet are prepared, one in white and the other in blue. The 
two copies bear the same number, and the correctness of the information given is 
certified by the competent committee or delegates. 

26. The sheets prepared according to the preceding article are simultaneously sent 
by the committees or delegates; the blue to the governor of the place, the white to 
the central committee, which transmits them to the direction of the Jewish Coloniza- 
tion Association. 

27. The direction of the Jewish Colonization Association, after having examined 
the white sheets above mentioned, returns them to the central committee and the 
latter presents to the department of police, in the original, those of the sheets which 
relate to the individuals indicated for emigration. The sheets must bear the stamp 
showing that they have been examined by the association. 

28. The white sheets relating to Jews of military age, indicated for emigration, 
must be presented, comformably to the preceding article, to the department of police 
at the latest on the 1st of March of the year in which these persons are obliged to 
present themselves for the draft. 

29. Simultaneously with the presentation to the department of police of the white 
sheets the central committee communicates to the local committees or to its delegates 
the list of sheets with the indication of their numbers. 

30. Ths local committees, as well as the delegates, fulfill the formalities required 
by the authorities concerning the free departure from the Enipire of the individuals 
indicated for emigration, and after having received from the governors the permits to 
leave charge themselves with the care of forwarding the emigrants to the frontier 
within a period which shall not exceed one month from the receipt of the said permits. 

31. The list of emigrants must be sent by the local committees, eight days at least 
before their departure, to the central committee or to the persons who will be charged 
by the Jewish Colonization Association to receive the emigrants at the frontier. 

32. The committee as well as the delegates are required to inform the local police 
in sufficient time of each considerable removal of emigrants and of the frontier toward 
which they are directed. 

33. The Jewish Colonization Association as well as the committees of emigration 
are authorized to bring to the knowledge of the Israelite population that the Israelites 
who shall have emigrated without the consent of the committees which work imder 
the supervision of the Government can not count upon anj^ aid either on the part of the 
said association or on the nart of the committees. The notices as well as the appeals 
can be published and distributed only after the previous authorization of the minister 
of the interior. 

34. The Israelites possessed of the necessary means to emigrate and to establish 
themselves abroad without the pecuniary assistance of the committees and of the 
Jewish Colonization Association can nevertheless be invited to address themselves to 
the agency of the committees, which will facilitate the obtaining of the necessary 
documents and accomplish for them the formalities demanded. 

(Foreign Relations, 1892, pp. 387-389.) 



TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 167 

Mr. Wharton to Mr. White. 

Department of State, 

Washington, February 28, 1893. 

Sir: I transmit herewith for your information copies of correspondence recently 
exchanged -with the Russian minister here in relation to the refusal of the consul 
general of Russia at New York to attach his vise to the passport of Mrs. Minnie Lerin, 
a naturalized citizen of the United States, because she is of the Jewish faith. 

The avowal of Prince Cantacuzene's note that the action of the Russian consul 
general is under instructions from his Government which interdict the authentica- 
tion of passports of foreign Jews, presents a question embarrassing as it is painful 
when arising with a nation for whose Government and people such intimate friend- 
ship has so long been manifested by the American people. 

It is apt to be inferred from Prince Cantacuzene's note that the declaration of 
Mrs. Lerin's religious profession was elicited from her by some interrogative process 
on the part of the Imperial consul general. 

It is not constitutionally within the power of this Government or of any of its 
authorities to apply a religious test in qualification of equal rights of all citizens of 
the United States; and it is therefore impossible to acquiesce in the application of 
such a test, within the jurisdiction of the United States, by agents of a foreign power, 
to the impairment of the rights of any American citizen or in derogation of the 
certificate of this Government to the fact of such citizenship. 

On several occasions in the past this Government has made temperate but earnest 
remonstrance against the examination into the religious faith of American citizens 
by the Russian authorities in Russia. The asserted right of territorial sovereignty over 
ail sojourners in the Empire, to our deep regret, outweighed our friendly protests. 

His Majesty's Government, however, surely can not expect the United States to 
acquiesce in the assumption of a religious inquisitorial function within our own borders 
by a foreign agency in a manner so repugnant to the national sense. 

I can not but surmise that some strange misapprehension exists in this regard in 
the mind of His Majesty's Government which your accustomed ability and tact may 
perhaps explain and perhaps remove. 

It does not appear needful to my present purpose to consider whether a special 
phase may not be given to the question by the circumstance that Mrs. Lerin was 
bom in Russia. Mr. Foster's note of the 16th instant to Prince Cantacuzene indicates 
a disposition to consider and discuss an explanation based on the former political 
status of the individual. The reply of the minister announces that with certain un- 
specified exceptions the prohibition in question applies to "foreign Jews." The 
sweeping character of this statement suggests inadvertence, and confirms my assump- 
tion that the matter is misapprehended by the Russian Government or by its agents 
in the United States. For this reason I have contented myself with a simple ac- 
knowledgment of Prince Cantucuzene's note, under the reserve necessarily imposed 
upon this Government by the Constitution and the laws, and by its just expectation 
that his passports shall be respected as authoritative evidence of citizenship. 

In this connection you may conveniently consult Mr. Bayard's instruction to Mr. 
Wurts's No. 140, of September 11, 1888, in relation to a previous refusal of the Russian 
consul general to authenticate legal documents for use in Russia when applied for 
by a Jew. On this general subject you may examine Mr. Evarts's No. 55 to Mr. Foster 
(March 3, 1881) and Mr. Blaine's No. 87 (July 29, 1881). 

William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 536.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 
[Extract.] 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, April 11, 1893. 
Sir: Referring to Mr. ^^Tiarton's dispatch No. 60, of February 28, 1893, in regard 
to the case of Mrs. Mannie Lerin, a naturalized citizen of the United States bom in 
Russia, to whom a vise was refused at the Piussian consulate general in New York, I 
have taken no action for the reason that there seems little chance at present of secur- 
ing anything either in behalf of the person above named or of the doctrine for which 
our Government has contended so long in vain. While ready to seize any favorable 



168 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

opportunity to bring up the subject and to urge views favorable to the doctrine which 
we would naturally like to see established, I have thought it wise to await the return 
of the minister of foreign affairs, M. de Giers, who can speak and act with an author- 
ity on subjects of this kind, which the acting minister can hardly be expected to 



I have, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 538.) 



Mr. Foster to Prince Cantacuzene. 

Department op State, 

Washington, February 16, 1893. 
My Dear Sir: The department is advised that the consul of Russia at New York 
has peremptorily refused to vise a passport. No. 46250, issued on the 6th instant to 
Mannie Lerin, a duly naturalized citizen of the United States, born at Odessa, Russia. 
Miss Lerin explains that she desires to visit her parents in Russia, and the action of 
the consul, of course, precludes all possibility of her doing so. 

It is inferred that the consul bases his action upon the general instructions of his 
Government, allowing him to decline to vis6 a passport of a former subject of Russia 
who had left his native land without permission to escape military service. If this 
theory is correct, it is not perceived how this condition can apply to a woman, and I 
shall be glad to learn, if you please, the reason of the consul's action in this particular 
instance. 

Awaiting, etc., John W. Foster. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 547.) 



Prince Cantacuzene to Mr. Adee. 

Legation of Russia, 
Washington, February 20, 1893. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your note of February 16, concerning the refusal of our 
consul general in New York to vis6 the passport of Mrs. (not Miss) Mannie Lerin, a 
naturalized citizen of the United States, I beg to say that it appears from the informa- 
tion I just received from our consul general that the said Mrs. Lerin declared herself 
to be a Jewess. 

In the present circumstance Mr. Olarovosky acted according to the instructions 
of his Government interdicting to vise passports of foreign Jews, with the exception 
of certain cases, under which Mrs. Lerin can not be placed. 

Accept, etc., Cantacuzene. 

(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 548.) 



Mr. Wharton to Prince Cantacuzene. 

Department of State, 

Washington, February 28, 1893. 
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 20th instant, in reply to Mr. 
Foster's of the 16th, concerning the refusal of the Russian consul general at New York 
to vis6 the United States passport of Mrs. Minnie Lerin. 

_ In view of your statement that the vis6 in question was refused because Mrs. Lerin 
declared herself to be a "Jewess," and in accordance with the instructions of the 
Imperial Government "interdicting to vis6 passports of foreign Jews, with the excep- 
tion of certain cases under which Mrs. Lerin can not be placed," I limit myself for 
the present to acknowledge your communication under the reserve necessarily 
imposed upon the Government by its Constitution and laws and by its just expecta- 
tion that its certification of the character of American citizenship will be respected. 
Accept, sir, etc., 

William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary. 
(Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 548.) 



TERMIlSrATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832, 169 

Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. 

[Telegram.] 

Department of State, 
Washington, May 17, 1893. 
Representations made here that Russian Government is about to enforce edict 
against Jews which will result in a large emigration of destitute people of that class 
to the United States. 

If there is foundation for what we hear, you will please ascertain and report as 
speedily as possible the terms of the edict and its probable effect. 

Gkesham. 
(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 525.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation op the United States, 

*' St. Petersburg, July 6, 1893. 

Sir: Your telegram, presumably of May 17, was received on the morning of May 18 
and answered at once. 

Since telegraphing you I have made additional inquiries with reference to your 
question and am persuaded that there has been no new edict banishing Israelites from 
Poland, as was stated in some of the papers of western Europe; but for some time 
past the old edicts and regulations against them have been enforced in various parts 
of the Empire with more and more severity. 

Soon after my arrival at this post it was rumored that there was to be some mitigation 
in the treatment of them, but the hopes based on this rumor have grown less and less, 
and it is now clear that the tendency is all in the direction of not only excluding 
Israelites more rigorously than ever from parts of the Empire where they were formerly 
allowed on sufferance, but to make life more and more difficult for them in those parts 
of the Empire where they have been allowed to live for many generations. 

As you are doubtless aware, there are about 5,000,000 Israelites in Russia, forming, 
as it is claimed, more than half of the entire Jewish race, and these are packed together 
in the cities and villages of what was formerly Poland and adjacent Governments, in 
a belt extending along the western borders from northwest to southeast, but which 
for many years has been drawn back from the frontier about 40 miles under the neces- 
sity, as it is claimed, imposed by the tendency of the Israelites in that region to con- 
duct smuggling operations. In other parts of the Empire they have only been allowed 
to reside as a matter of exceptional favor. This alleged favor, under the more kindly 
reign of Alexander II, was largely developed and matured into a sort of quasi right in 
the case of certain classes, such as Israelites who have been admitted into the learned 
professions or have taken a university degree or have received the rights of merchants 
df the first or second guild, paying the heavy fees required in such cases. 

Certain skilled artisans have also been allowed to reside in certain towns outside 
the Jewish pale; but their privileges are very uncertain, liable to revocation at any 
time, and have in recent years been greatly diminished. Besides this, certain 
Israelites are allowed by special permits to reside as clerks in sundry establishments, 
but under the most uncertain tenure. This tenure can be understood by a case 
which occurred here about a month since. 

At that time died an eminent Israelite of St. Petersburg, a Mr. , who had 

distinguished himself by rescuing certain great companies from ruin by his integ- 
rity and skill in various large operations and by the fact that, while he made large 
and constant gains for those interested in these companies and operations, he laid 
up for himself only a modest competence. He had in his employ a large number 
of Jewish clerks, and it is now regarded here as a matter of fact that at the expira- 
tion of their passes, say in a few months, all of them must leave St. Petersburg. 

The treatment of the Israelites, whether good or evil, is not based entirely upon 
any one ukase or statute. There are said to be in the vast jungle of the laws of the 
Empire more than 1,000 decrees and statutes relating to them, besides innumerable 
circulars, open or secret, regulations, restrictions, extensions, and temporary arrange- 
ments, general, special, and local, forming such a tangled growth that probably no 
human being can say what the law as a whole is — least of all can a Jew in any province 
have any knowledge of his rights. 

From time to time, and especially during the reign of Alexander II, who showed 
himself more kind to them than any other sovereign had ever been, many of them were 



170 TEEMINATION OP THE. TEEATY OF 1832. 

allowed to leave this overcrowded territory, and, at least, were not hindered from coming 
into territory and towns which, strictly speaking, they were not considered as entitled 
to enter; but for some time past this residence on sufferance has been rendered more and 
more difficult. Details of the treatment to which they have been subjected may be 
found in the report made by Mr. J. C. Weber and his associate commissioners, entitled 
"Report of the Commissioners of Immigration upon the causes which incite immigra- 
tion to the United States," Government Printing Office. I must confess that when I 
first read this report its statements seemed to me exaggerated, or, at least, overcolored, 
but it is with very great regret that I say that this is no longer my opinion. Not only 
is great severity exercised as regards the main body of Israelites here, but it is from 
time to time brought to bear with especial force upon those returning to Russia from 
abroad. The case was recently brought to my notice of a Jewish woman who, having 
gone abroad, was stopped on her return at a frontier station, and, at last accounts, had 
been there three days, hoping that some members of her family in Russia might be 
able to do something to enable her to rejoin them. 

Israelites of the humbler class find it more and more difficult to reenter Russia, and 
this fact will explain the case of Mrs. Minnie Lerin, referred to in Mr. Wharton's dis- 
patch No. 60 (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 536), as being refused a vis6 at the Russian 
consulate general in New York, and it will also throw light on various other cases we 
have had in which the legation has been able to secure mitigation in the application 
of the rules. 

On this latter point we have been successful in obtaining such mitigation in cases 
of many Israelites who have been subjected to annoyance by overzealous local author- 
ities. 

It may appear strange that any nation should wish to expel a people who, in other 
parts of the world, have amassed so much wealth. The fact is that but a very small 
fraction of them in Russia are wealthy; few even in comfortable circumstances. The 
vast majority of them are in poverty and a very considerable part in misery — ^just on 
the border of starvation. 

Nearly 40 years ago, when, as an attache of this legation, I was for 7 days and 
nights on the outside of a post coach between St. Petersburg and Warsaw — there 
being then no railway to the frontier — I had ample opportunity to see something of 
these Israelites and of the region in which they live. They exist for the most part 
in squalor, obliged to resort to almost anything that offers, in order to keep soul and 
body together. Even the best of them were treated with contempt by the lowest of 
the pure Russians. I myself saw two Israelites, evidently of the wealthier class and 
richly clad, who had ventured into the inclosure in front of the posthouse to look at 
the coach in which I was, lashed v/ith a coach whip and driven out of the inclosure 
with blows by one of the postilions — evidently a serf. 

A very few millionaire Israelites are to be found among the merchants of the first 
guild in some of the larger cities, but there is no such proportion of wealthy men among 
them as in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany. In the smaller 
towns, in some of which they form the majority of the residents, their poverty is so 
abject that they drag each other down, making frequently a ruinous competition with 
each other in such branches of business as they are allowed to pursue. This is now 
even more the case than ever before, since recent regulations have swept the Israelites 
living in many rural districts into the towns. 

A case was a few days since mentioned to me in which a small town of 8,000 or 10,000 
inhabitants had recently received into its population nearly 6,000 Israelites from the 
surrounding country. 

The restrictions are by no means confined to residence ; they extend into every field 
of activity. Even in the parts of the Empire where the Israelites are most free they 
are not allowed to hold property in land, or to take a mortgage on land, or to farm land, 
and of late they have been even, to a large extent, prevented from living on farms, 
and have been thrown back into the cities and villages. 

As to other occupations, Jewish manufacturers have at times, even under the present 
reign, been crippled by laws or regulations forbidding them to employ Christian work- 
men, but these are understood to be not now in force. They are relics of the old legis- 
lation which in the interest of the servant's soul forbade a Jew to employ a Christian 
servant under pain of death, and which, in a mitigated form, remained on the statute 
book until 1865, when it was abolished by Alexander II. 

There are also many restrictions upon" the professions considered more honorable. 
A few Israelites are allowed to become engineers, and they are allowed to hold 5 per 
cent of the positions of army surgeons, but no more; and this in spite of the fact that 
from the middle ages until now their race has been recognized as having a peculiar 
aptitude for medicine and surgery. As a rule, also, they are debarred from charging 
any public functions of importance, and even as to lesser functions a Jew can not be 
elected mayor of a village or even member of its council. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 171 

Not more than one man in ten of those summoned to do jury duty can be a Jew, and 
even in the cities within the pale, where the Jews form the great majority of the popu- 
lation, they can not hold more than one-thu-d of the places on a municipal council. 

Perhaps the most painful of the restrictions upon them is in regard to the education 
of their children. The world over, as is well known, the Israelites will make sacrifices 
to educate their sons and daughters, such as are not made, save in exceptional cases, 
by any other people. They are, as is universally recognized, a very_ gifted people, 
but no matter how gifted a young Israelite may be his chances of receiving an educa- 
tion are small. 

In regions where they are most numerous only 10 per cent of the scholars in high 
schools and universities are allowed to be Jews, but in many cases the number allowed 
them is but 5 per cent, and in St. Petersburg and Moscow only 3 per cent. Out of 75 
young Israelites who applied for admission to the University of Dorpat in 1887 only 
7 were allowed to enter. A few days since the case was brought to my notice of a well- 
to-do Israelite who wished to educate his son, whom he considered especially gifted, 
but could not obtain permission to educate him in St. Petersburg, and was obliged to 
be satisfied with the permission to enter him at one of the small provincial universi- 
ties remote from this capital. 

To account for this particular restriction it is urged that if freely allowed to receive 
an advanced education, they would swarm in the high schools, universities, _ and 
learned professions; and, as a proof of this, the fact is mentioned that some time since, 
in the absence of restrictions, at Odessa from 50 to 70 per cent of the scholars in sundry 
Russian colleges were Jews. 

As to religious restrictions, the general policy pursued seems to an unprejudiced 
observer from any other country so illogical as to be incomprehensible. On one 
hand great powers are given to Jewish rabbis and religious authorities. They are 
allowed in the districts where the Israelites mainly live to form a sort of state within 
the state, with power to impose taxes upon their coreligionists and to give their regu- 
lations virtually the force of law. On the other hand, efforts of zealous orthodox 
Christians to proselyte Israelites, which must provoke much bitterness, are allowed 
and even favored. The proselytes once brought within the orthodox Russian fold, no 
matter by what means, any resumption of the old religion by them is treated as a crime. 

Recent cases have occurred where Jews who have been thus converted and who 
have afterwards attended the synagogue have been brought before the courts. 

So, too, in regard to religious instruction it would seem to an unprejudiced observer, 
wishing well both to Russia and to the Israelites, that the first thing to do would be to 
substitute instruction in science, general literature, and in technical branches for that 
which is so strongly complained of by Russians generally — the instruction in the 
Talmud and Jewish theology. But this is just what is not done, and, indeed, as above 
stated, not allowed. 

The whole system at present in vogue is calculated to make Talmudic and theolog- 
ical schools, which are so constantly complained of as the nurseries and hotbeds of 
anti-Russian and anti-Christian fanaticism, the only schools accessible to the great 
majority of gifted young Israelites. 

As to recent interferences of which accounts have been published in the English 
newspapers, and especially as to a statement that a very large number of Jewish 
children were early during the present year taken from their parents in one of the 
southern governments of Russia and put into monastic schools under charge of orthodox 
priests, this statement having been brought especially to my notice by letters 
addressed to me as the representative of the United States, I communicated with 
our consuls in the regions referred to, and also obtained information from other trust- 
worthy sources, and the conclusion at which I arrived was that the statement was 
untrue. It probably had its origin in the fact that much anxiety has recently been 
shown by high officials, and especially ecclesiastics, to promote education in which 
orthodox religious instruction holds a very important part. 

In justification of all these restrictions various claims are made. First of all, it is 
claimed that the Jews lend money to peasants and others at enormous rates of interest^ 
But it is pointed out in answer to this that sundry bankers and individuals in parts of 
Russia where no Jews are permitted have made loans at much higher rate than Jews 
have ever ventured to do. While it is allowed that 100 per cent a year has not infre- 
quently been taken by the Israelites, there seems to be no doubt of the fact that from 
300 to 800 per cent, and even more sometimes, has been taken by Christians. 

This statement seems incredible, but it is unimpeachable. In a general way it is 
supported by a recent report of a Russian official to Mr. Sagonof ; and a leading journal 
of St. Petersburg, published under f^trict cen=or.~hip, has recently given ca es_with 
names and dates, where a rate higher than the highest above named was paid by 
Russian peasants to Christian money lenders. 



172 TERMIISrATIO]^ OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Tliose inclined to lenity toward tlie Jews point to the fact that none of them would 
dare to take any such rates of interest as Christians may freely demand; that to do so 
would raic-e_ against the Israelites in their neighborhood storms which they could not 
resist, and it is argued that, as their desire for gain is restricted in this way, their 
presence in any part of Russia tends to diminish the rate of interest, rather than to 
increase it. On the other hand, it is claimed that they will not work at agriculture, 
and, indeed, they will do no sort of manual labor which they can avoid. 

As to the first of these charges, the fact is dwelt upon, which has so impressed Mr. 
McKenzie Wallace and other travelers, that the Jewish agricultural colonies founded 
by Alexander I in 1810 and by Nicholas I in 1840 have not done well. 

But in answer it may be stated as a simple matter of history that, having been 
originally an agricultural people, they have been made what they are by ages of per- 
secution, which have driven them into the occupations to which they are now so 
generally devoted; that in Russia they have for generations been incapacitated for 
agricultural work by such restrictions as those above referred to; that even if they are 
allowed here and there to till the land, they are not allowed, in the parts of the Empire 
which they most inhabit, to buy or even farm it, and thus the greatest incentive to 
labor is taken away. 

As to other branches of manual labor, simply as a matter of fact, there are very 
large bodies of Jewish artisans in Poland, numbering in the aggregate about one-half 
of the entire adult male Israelite population. Almost every branch of manual labor 
is represented among them, and well represented. As stone masons they have an 
especially high reputation, and it is generally conceded that in sobriety, capacity, and 
attention to work they are fully equal to their Christian rivals. 

Complaint is also made that they, as far as possible, avoid military service. This is 
doubtless true, but the reasons for it are evident. For the Jewish soldier there is no 
chance of prornotion, and when he retires from the service he is, as a rule, subject to 
the same restrictions and inflictions as others of his rare. In spite of this fact the 
number of them in the conscription of 1886 was over 40,000. 

I find everywhere, in discussing this subject, a complaint that the Israelites, wher- 
ever they are allowed to exist, get the better of the Russian peasant. The difficulty 
is that the life of the Israelite is marked by sobriety, self-denial, and foresight; and 
whatever may be the kindly qualities ascribed to the Russian peasant — and there are 
many — these qualities are rarely, if ever, mentioned among them. 

It is also urged against the Israelites in Russii that they are not patriotic, but in 
view of the policy pursued re<jarding them the wonder is that any human being 
should expect them to be patriotic. 

There is also frequent complaint against Jewish fanaticism, and recently collections 
of extracts from the Talmud have been published here in western Europe, and even 
in the United States, tu show that Israelites are educated in bitter and undying hate 
of Christians, and taught not only to despise but to despoil them; and it is insisted 
that the vast majority of Israelites in Russia have, by ages of this kind of instruction 
and by the simple laws of heredity, been made beasts of prey with claws and teeth 
especially sharp, and that the peasant VAW-t be protected from them. 

Lately this charge has been strongly reiterated, a book having appeared here in 
which the original Hebrew of the worst Talmudic passages, with translations of them, 
are placed in parallel columns. It seems to be forgotten that the Israelites would be 
more than human if such passages did not occur in their sacred writings. While some 
of those passages antedate the establishment of Christianity, most of them have been 
the result of fervor under oppression and of the appeal to the vengeance of Jehovah in 
times of persecution; and it would be but just to set against them the more kindly pas- 
sages, especially the broad and humane teachings which are so frequent in the same 
writings. 

An eminently practical course would be to consider the development of Judaism 
in the United States, Great Britain, and other countries, where undeniably those 
darker features of the Talmud have been more and more blotted out from Jewish 
teaching and the unfortunate side of Talmudic influence more and more weakened. 

But this charge of Talmudic fanaticism is constantly made, and Russians, to show 
that there is no hatred of Israelites as such, point to the fact that the Koraites, who are 
non-Talmudic, have always been treated with especial kindness. 

To this the answer would seem to be that the Koraites are free from fanaticism because 
they have been so long kindly treated, and that this same freedom and kindness which 
has made them unobjectionable to Russian patriotism would, in time, probably render 
the great mass of Israelites equally so. 

There is no need of argument either, in the light of history or of common sense, 
to prove that these millions of Israelites in Russia are not to be rendered less fanatical 
by the treatment to which they are at present subjected. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 173 

To prove that tlie more bitter utterances in tlie Talmud complained of do not nec- 
essarily lead Israelites to hate Christians, and indeed to show that the teachings which 
the Israelites receive in countries where they have more freedom lead them to a broad 
philanthropy of the highest type, I have been accustomed, in discussing the subject 
with Russians, to point to such examples of the truest love for human kind as those 
shown by Judah Tours in the United States, Sir Moses Montefiore in England, Nathan 
de Rothschild in Austria, James de Rothschild and Baron Hirsch in France, and mul- 
titudes of other cases, citing especially the fact of the extensive charities carried on 
by Israelites in all countries, and the significant circumstance that the first considerable 
contribution from the United States to the Russian famine fund came from a Jewish 
synagogue in California, with the request that in the use of it no discrimination should 
be made between Jews and Christians. Cases like these would seem to do away 
effectually with the idea that Jewish teachings necessarily inculcate hostility to 
people of other religious beliefs. 

There is also a charge closely connected with the foregoing which undoubtedly has 
much to do with the present severe reaction. It is constantly repeated that, in spite 
of the fact that the late Emperor Alexander II had shown himself more kindly toward 
the Israelites than had any of his predecessors — relaxing the old rules as to residence, 
occupation, education, and the like, and was sure, had he lived, to go much further 
in the same direction, probably as far as breaking down a mass of existing barriers 
and throwing open vast regions never before accessible to them — the proportion of 
Israelites implicated in the various movements against him, especially in the 
Nihilistic movement, and in the final plot which led to his assassination, was far 
beyond the numerical proportion of their race in Russia to the entire population. 
This feeling was certainly at the bottom of the cruel persecutions of the Israelites by 
the peasants just after the death of the late Emperor, and has no less certainly much 
to do with the prejudices of the various personages of high influence as well as of the 
vast masses of the people which still exist. 

The rem.arkable reaction at present dominant in Russia is undoubtedly in great 
measure,, if not entii-ely, the result of the assassination of Alexander II; it is a mere 
truism to say that this event was the most unfortunate in its effects on well-ordered 
progress that has occurred in this Empire; but, so far as the Israelites are concerned, 
the facts at the bottom of this charge against them can be accounted for, without 
imputing anything to the race at large, by the mass of bitterness stored up during ages 
of oppression not only in Russia but elsewhere. The matter complained of must 
certainly be considered as exceptional, for it can not hide the greater fact that the 
Jews have always shown themselves especially grateful to such rulers as have mitigated 
their condition or even shown a kindly regard for them. 

I was myself, as minister at Berlin, cognizant of innumerable evidences of gratitude 
and love shown by the entire Jewish population toward the Crown Prince, afterwards 
the Emperor Frederick III, who, when Jew-baiting was in fashion, and patronized by 
many persons in high positions, set himself quietly but firmly against it. And this 
reminiscence leads me to another in regard to the oft-repeated charge that the Israelite 
is incapable of patriotism, is a mere beast of prey, and makes common cause with those 
of his race engaged in sucking out the substance of the nation where he happens to be. 
It was my good fortune to know personalljr several Israelites at Berlin who as members 
of the Imperial Parliament showed their patriotism by casting away all hopes of 
political advancement and resisting certain financial claims in which some of their 
coreligionists, as well as some leading and very influential Christians, were deeply 
engaged. There is nothing nobler in recent parliamentary history than the career of 
such Israelites as Lasker and Bamberger during that period, and at this moment no 
sane man in Germany hesitates to ascribe to that Israelite Simson all the higher quali- 
ties required in his great office, that of chief justice in the highest court of the German 
Empire. 

The same broad and humane characteristics have been shown among the vast 
majority of Israelites eminent in science, philosophy, literature, and the arts. Long 
before the Israelite Spinoza wrought his own continued life into the history of philoso- 
phy, this was noted, and it has continued to be noted in Russia. During my former 
residence here there were two eminent representatives of the proscribed race in the 
highest scientific circles, and they were especially patriotic and broad in their sym- 
pathies; and to-day the greatest of Russian sculptors, Antokolski, an Israelite, has 
thrown into his work not only more genius, but also more of profoundly patriotic 
Russian feeling, than has any other sculptor this period. He has revived more, 
evidently, than has any other sculptor, the devotion of Russians to their greatest men 
in times past, and whenever the project of erecting at St. Petersburg a worthy monu- 
ment to the late Emporer shall be carried out, there is no competent judge who will 
not acknowledge that he is the man in all Russia to embody in marble or bronze the 



174 TERMINATIOlSr OP THE. TEEATY OF 1832, 

gratitude of the nation. This is no mere personal opinion of my own, for when recently 
a critic based an article against Antokolski's work, evidently upon grounds of race 
antipathy, a brilliant young author, of one of the oldest and most thoroughly Russian 
families in the Empire, Prince Sergius Wolkonsky, wrote a most cogent refutation 
of the attack. It is also charged that in Russia, and, indeed, throughout Europe, 
an undue proportion of Jews have been prominent in movements generally known 
as "socialistic," and such men as Ferdinand Lasalle and Karl Marx, are referred to. 

When this statement has been made in my hearing I have m.et it by counter state- 
ment of a fact which seems to me to result from the freedom allowed in the United 
States, namely, the fact that at the meeting of the American Social Science Associa- 
tion in 1891, in which a discussion took place invohang the very basis of the existing 
social system, and in which the leading representatives of both sides in the United 
States were most fully represented, the argument which was generally agreed to be 
the most effective a,gainst the revolutionary and antisocial forces was made by a young 
Israelite, Prof. Seligman, of Columbia University, in the city of New York. Here, 
again, results are mistaken for causes; the attitude com.plained of in the Iraelites is 
clearly the result of the oppression of their race. 

But there is one charge which it isperhaps my duty to say that I have never heard 
made against Israelites even by Russians most opposed to them — the charge that they 
are to be found in undue or even in any considerable proportions among inebriates or 
criminals. The simplest reason for this exception in their favor is found in thp official 
statistics, which show that, in the governm^ents where they are most numerous, dis- 
eases and crimes resulting from the consumption of alcoholic drinks are least numerous, 
and that where the number of Israelites is greatest the consumption of spirits is least. 
It is also well known, as a matter of general observation, that the Russian Israelites 
are, as a rule, sober, and that crimes among them are comparatively infrequent. 

Yet, if in any country we might expect alcoholism to be greatly developed among 
them it would be in this Empire, where their misery is so great and the temptation to 
drown it in intoxicating beverages so constant; and if in any country we might expect 
crime to be developed largely among them it would be in this Empire, where, crowded 
together as they are, the struggle for existence is so bitter. Their survival under it 
can only be accounted for by their superior thrift and sobriety. 

I WOT Id be a mistake to suppose that religious hatred or even deeply religious feeling 
is a main factor in this question. The average Russian believes that all outside the 
orthodox Greek Church are lost; but he does not hate them on that account, and 
though there has been of late years, during the present reaction, an increase of pressure 
upon various Christian organizations outside the established church, this has been 
undeniably from political rather than religious reasons; it has been part of the "Rus- 
sifying process," which is at present the temporary fashion. 

The rule in Russia has always been toleration, though limited by an arrangement 
which seems to a stranger very peculiar. In St. Petersburg, for example, there are 
churches for nearly all the recognized forms of Christian belief, as well as synagogues 
for Hebrews, and at least one Mohammedan mosque; but the only proselytism allowed 
is that between themselves and from them to the established church; in other words, 
the Greek Church may proselyte from is unorthodox ^Rdthin certain limits, each of 
them can make converts from the Greek Church. 

This regulation seems rather the result, on the whole, of organized indifference than 
of zeal, its main purpose being undoubtedly to keep down any troublesome religious 
fervor. The great body of the Russian peasantry, v/hen left to themselves, seem to be 
remarkabl)^ free from any spirit of fanatical hostility toward religious systems differing 
from their own, and even from the desire to make pro.5elytes. Mr. Mackenzie Wallace, 
in his admirable book, after showing that the orthodox Russian and the Mohommedan 
Tartar live in various communities in perfect peace with each other, details a con- 
versation with a Russian peasant, in which the latter told him that just as Godgave 
the Tartar a darker skin, so he gave him a different religion; and this feeling of indif- 
ference, when the peasants are not excited by zealots on one side or the other, seerns 
to prevail toward the Roman Catholics in Poland and the Protestants in the Baltic 
provinces and Fiidand. While some priests have undoubtedly done much to create 
a more zealous feeling, it was especially noted during the fierce persecutions of the 
Jews early in the present reign that in several cases the orthodox village priests not 
only gave shelter to Israelites seeking to escape harm, but exerted themselves to put 
an end to the persecutions. So, too, during the past few days the papers have con- 
tained a statement that a priest very widely known and highly esteemed, to whom 
miraculous power? are quite generally attributed — Father John, of Cronstadt — has 
sent some of the charitv money, of which he is almoner, to certain Jewish orphanages 
under the control of Israelites. 



TEEMINATIOISr OP THE TEEATY OP 1832. 175 

The whole present condition of things is rather the outcome of a great complicated 
mass of causes, involving racial antipathies, remembrances of financial servitude, 
vague inherited prejudices, with myths and legends like those of the Middle Ages. 

But, whatever may be the origin of the feeling toward the Israelites, the practical 
fact remains that the present policy regarding them is driving them out of the country 
in great masses. The German papers speak of large numbers seeking the United 
States and the Argentine Republic — but especially the former — through the northern 
ports of that Empire, and, as I write, the Russian papers state that eight steamers 
loaded with them are just about leaving Libau for America. 

It is, of course, said in regard to these emigrants that they have not been ordered 
out of the country, that they can stay in Russia if they like, and that Russia has simply 
exercised her right to manage her own internal affairs in her own way. But it is none 
the less true that the increasing severity in the enforcement of the regulations regard- 
ing the Israelites is the main, if not the only, cause of this exodus. In order that this 
question may be understood in its relations to the present condition of political opinion 
in the Empire, there is need to make some additional statement. 

There has never been a time probably when such a feeling of isolation from the rest 
of the world and aversion to foreign influence of every sort have prevailed in Russia 
as at present. It is shared by the great majority, from the highest to the lowest, and 
it is echoed in the press. Russia has been during the last 10 years in a great reaction- 
ary period, which now seems to be culminating in the attempted " P^ussification " of 
the Empire, involving such measures as increasing pressure upon Poland, increasing 
interference with the Baltic Provinces and the German colonies, in the talk of consti- 
tutional changes in Finland, in the substitution of Russian for German names of vari- 
ous western towns, in the steadily increasing provisions for strengthening the orthodox 
Russian Church against all other religious organizations, is the outcry made by various 
papers in favor of such proposals as that for transferring the university at Dorpat into 
the Muscovite regions of the interior, for changing the name of St. Petersburg, and for 
every sort of Russifying process which the most imaginative can devise. 

In this present reaction, connected as it is with bitter disappointment over the 
defeat of Russian aspirations in the Berlin treaty and since, reforms which were for- 
merly universally considered honorable and desirable for Russia are now regarded with 
aversion; the controlling feeling is for "Russification." 

Peter the Great is now very largely regarded by Russians as having taken a wrong 
road, and, while monuments are erected to Alexander II, his services as emancipator 
of the serfs are rarely alluded to, and the day formerly observed in remembrance of 
the emancipation has ceased to be publicly noticed. This reaction shows itself in 
general literature, in paintings, in sculpture, in architecture, in everything. Any 
discussion regarding a change in the present condition of things is met by the reply 
that strangers do not understand Russian questions, and that these questions are com- 
plicated historically, politically, economically, and socially to such a degree that none 
but those having personal experience can understand them. If the matter is still 
further pressed and the good effects of a different policy in the United States, Great 
Britain, and elsewhere are referred to, it is answered that in those countries a totally 
different state of things exists, and that no arguments can be made from them to Rus- 
sia. Any continuance of the discussion is generally met by the statement that Prussian 
questions are largely misrepresented by the press of western Europe; that there is a 
systematic propaganda against Russia in England, Germany, Austria, and Italy; that 
England does or allows worse things in her Irish evictions and in her opium traffic, and 
the United States in lynch-law proceedings and treatment of the Chinese than any 
done or allowed in Russia; that, in short, Russia is competent to take charge of he 
own internal policy, and that other powers will do well to mind their own business 
This feeling is closely akin to that which was shown sometimes in the United State* 
before the civil toward foreign comments upon our own "peculiar institution," when 
representations by such philanthropists as the Duchess of Sutherland, George Thomp- 
son, M. P., and others were indignantly repelled. 

This condition of opinion and the actions resulting from it are so extreme that it 
naturally occms to one who has observed Russian history that a reaction can not be 
long deferred. 

The progress of Russia thus far has been mainly by a series of reactions. These 
have sometimes come with surprising suddenness. In view of that which took place 
when the transition was made from the policy of restriction followed by the Emperor 
Nicholas to the broadly liberal policy adopted by Alexander II, of which, being 
connected with this legation at that time, I was a witness, a reaction at present seems 
by no means impossible or even improbable. It is by no means necessary that a change 
of reign should take place. A transition might be occasioned, as others have been, 
by the rise of some strong personality bringing to bear upon the dominant opinion 

19831—11 ^12 



176 TERMINATION OE THE TREATY OF 1832. 

the undoubted fact that the present system of repression toward the Israelites _ is 
from every point of view a failure and that it is doing incalculable harm to Russia. 
This dispatch ought not, perhaps, to close without an apology for its length; the 
subject is one of great importance, and it has seemed to me a duty to furnish the 
department, in answer to the Secretary's question, with as full a report regarding the 
present stage in the evolution of the matter concerned as my opportunities have 
enabled me to make. 

I am, etc., Andre w_D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 535.) 



Mr. Gresham to Mr. Webb. 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 28, 1893. 

Sir: I have received and read with attention Mr. White's dispatch No. 119, of 
the 6th ultimo, in relation to the present condition of the Israelites in Russia and to 
the reported enforcement of repressive edicts against them, calculated to result in 
an increased emigration of destitute people of that class to the United States. 

The thoroughness with which the minister has answered my telegraphic inquiry 
of May 18 is commended. ' 

The subject is receiving the President's earnest consideration. It has beenfor 
some time evident that the measures adopted by the Imperial Government against 
the Jews, although professedly a domestic policy directly affecting the subjects of 
the Czar, were calculated to injuriously affect the American people by abruptly 
forcing upon our shores a numerous class of immigrants destitute of resources and 
unfitted in many important respects for absorption into our body politic. The con- 
tinued enforcement of such harsh measures, necessarily forcing upon us large num- 
bers of degraded and undesu-able persons who must, in great measure, be supported, 
can not be regarded as consistent _ with the friendship which the Russian Govern- 
ment has long professed for the United States. 

I am, etc., W. Q. Gresham. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 535.) 



Mr. Webb to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation or the United States, 

St. Petersburg, September 3, 1893. 

Sir: I have the honor to send you herein the substance of a circular on the subject 
of the expulsion of the Jews that has just appeared. It does not refer, I am informed, 
to Jews established in the trades— tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, etc.— but to clerks, 
employees in banks, bank directors, apothecaries and their assistants, doctors, etc. 
Freely rendered, the circular is as follows: The ministry of the interior has decided 
as follows relative to the question of expelling the Jews from localities where they 
are unlawfully residing in the interest of said Jews and of peasants with whom they 
have business relations : 

The last term for the expulsion of Jews from towns to localities granted them is 
extended to June 1, 1894. 

Governors of provinces are informed that in no case is this term to be extended 
longer than June 1, 1895. This term refers to special cases, which must be reported 
to the ministry and receive sanction. 

Special attention is also called to passports of Jews. No Jews will be allowed to 
remain in provincial towns excepting as travelers residing temporarily, as cases 
shown in section 151 of the statutes on passports. 

Expulsion of Jews from the military districts of the Caucasus. 

The minister of war has ordered the authorities of the Verskoi and Kouban dis- 
tricts to expel all Jews from the Kouban district within a month's notice, dating 
from the month of August. 

I am, etc., G. Creighton Webb, 

Chargl d' Affaires ad interim. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 536.) 



TEKMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 177 

Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 15, 1893. 

Sir: Although the newspapers of western Em-ope inform us that local authorities 
in the southern part of the Empire have recently driven out a considerable number 
of Israelites, no corroboration of the report comes from any other source, nor is this 
legation receiving any of those complaints and calls for intervention which have 
generally accompanied increased pressure upon the Jewish community. 

On the other hand, sundry Russian newspapers of late mention the fact that the 
Government is issuing tickets from various places within the Jewish pale in Poland 
to the frontier at specially reduced rates, but these journals significantly add that 
the reduction only operates in one direction — that is, on trains going westward, and 
not on return tickets. 

This, of course, indicates that Jewish immigration is still desired by the authori- 
ties, and is likely to be somewhat increased. 

I am, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 536.) 



Mr. Gresham to Mr. White. 

Department of State, 
Washington, December 22, 1893. 

Sir: I am in receipt of a letter from the Secretaiy of the Treasiuy of the 20th instant 
calling my attention to the following United Press dispatch from their correspondent 
in St. Petersburg: 

"London, December 17. 

"The United Press correspondent in St. Petersburg says that the Jewish emigTants 
now at frontier stations, on their way to America, if officially certified to be desti- 
tute, will be provided by Russian consuls at the ports of departure with sums necessary 
to insure their admission into the United States." 

Mr. Carlisle requests that you be instructed to verify the foregoing report, and, 
should it be found to be authentic, to inform the Russian Government that assisted 
immigrants of the class mentioned will not be permitted to land in the United States. 
You will give the matter your prompt and careful attention. 

I am, etc., W. Q. Gresham. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 537.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, February 13, 1894- 
Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 149, relative to the alleged assistance of Jewish 
emigrants to the United States, I have the honor to inform you that I have this day 
received a note from the imperial foreign office stating that this report is absolutely 
without foundation. 

I am, etc., Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 538.) 



Mr. White to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, February 17, 1894. 
Sir: Referring to the instructions contained in your dispatch No. 149, of December 
22, 1893, requiring me to ascertain from the Russian Government whether Jewish 
emigration to the United States had been assisted by Russian consular authorities, 
and to mine. No. 189, of February 13, 1894, stating that I had received an answer from 
the minister of foreign affairs to the effect that no such assistance had been given, I 
feel it my duty to call your attention to an article which appears in this morning's 



178 TERMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

number of the St. Petersburger Zeitung, a German paper of excellent standing, pub- 
lished in this city. 

The article, under the head of the "Jewish colonization question," gives an extract 
from a formal report laid before the general meeting of the directors of the Jewish 
Colonization in London, Baron von Hirsch presiding, on January 21, 1894. 

The report, after giving an account of the colonization of Russian Israelites in the 
Argentine Republic, goes on to state that a considerable number of the colonists 
were found incapable of labor; that it was necessary to expel these from the Jewish 
colonies in that region; that from May to December, 1893, more than 500 persona 
were thus driven out, and that "the greatest part of these were forwarded to North 
America, receiving, in addition to their traveling expenses, an amount of money 
sufficient to support them for a short time after their arrival." 

The report then goes on to speak of measures taken to bring out additional Jewish 
emigrants fi'om Russia, presumably for the purposes of winnowing out the best for the 
Argentine Republic and forwarding those rejected as unfit to our own. 

This would seem to throw some light on the question of the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury which formed the basis of your dispatch above referred to. 

I may add that the official report to the Jewish Colonization Association above 
referred to estimates the probable number of Russian Jewish emigrants into the Argen- 
tine Republic during the present year at about 4,000 persons. 
I am, etc., 

Andrew D. White. 

(Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 538.) 



Mr. Gresham to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department op State, 

Washington, April 15, 1895. 
Sir: Your attention is called to the department's No. 60, of February 28, 1893, to 
your predecessor, Mr. White, and to his reply of April 11, 1893, No. 81 (see Foreign 
Relations, 1893). 

The subject thereof, viz., the refusal of the Russian consulate general at New York, 
under instructions from his Government, to vise passports issued by this department 
to persons of the Jewish faith, has again come up for consideration. 

You are desired, unless good reason to the contrary occm's to you, to present to the 
Russian Government the views of this Government as contained in the dispatch of 
February 28, 1893, above referred to. 

I am, etc., W. Q. Gresham, 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1056.) 



Mr. Breclcinridge to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 17, 1895. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 46, of April 15, relating to the 
refusal of the Russian consul at New York, under instructions from his Government, 
to vis6 passports issued by the department to persons of Jewish faith, and instructing 
me, unless good reasons to the contrary should occur to me, to present to the Russian 
Government the views of our Government as contained in the department's No. 60 
of February 28,1893. 

After consulting the dispatch above referred to, and the references it contained, 
and carefully considering the matter, I concluded to address a note to Prince Lobanow 
upon the subject, a copy of which, of this date, is herewith inclosed. 

The records of this legation have not disclosed, after a careful search, the reply 
of the Russian Government to the position taken by our Government in the dispatch 
referred to. From long absence, however, of further complaint I presume the objec- 
tionable practice was discontinued. Its resumption or continuation after the most 
earnest representations of our Government, and knowing how obnoxious such an 
extraterritorial step, especially concerning religious liberty, must be to the United 
States, seemed to make it impolitic and unjust to be silent, and useless to speak in 
any terms but the plainest, though of course in a spirit of courtesy and kindness, 
which conclusion and course I respectfully submit. 



TEKMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 179 

In this connection I may add that soon after writing this note to Prince Lobanow I 
was handed by our consul general two applications from Mr. Armand de Potter, a 
tourist agent of New York, to secure the vis6 of the passports of Hebrew families. 
These I simply transmitted, 'calling attention to my previous note. 
I have, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1056.) 

[Inclosure in No. 71.] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Prince Lohanow. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 5-17, 1895. 

Your Excellency: I am directed by my Government to bring to the attention of 
the Imperial Government the refusal of the Russian consul of New York to vise pass- 
ports issued by the United States to its citizens if they are of the Jewish faith. 

As your excellency is aware, it has long been a matter of deep regret and concern 
to the United States that any of its citizens should be discriminated against for religious 
reasons while peacefully sojourning in this country, or that any restraint should be 
imposed upon their coming and going. Painful as this policy toward a class of our 
citizens is to my Government, repugnant to our constitutional duty to afford them 
in every possible way equal protection and privilegess and to our sense of their treaty 
rights, yet it is even more repugnant to our laws and the national sense for a foreign 
official, located within the jurisdiction of the United States, to there apply a religious 
test to any of our citizens or the impairment of his rights as an American citizen or 
in derogation of the certificate of our Government to the fact of such citizenship. 

It is not constitutionally within the power of the United States Government, or 
any of its authorities, to apply a religious test in (qualification of equal rights of all 
citizens of the United States, and no law or principle is more warmly cherished by 
the American people. It is therefore impossible for ray Goyernnient to acquiesce 
in any manner in the application of such a test within its jurisdiction by the agents 
of a foreign power. 

When, this matter was the subject of correspondence between my Government and 
the Imperial representative at Washington, as shown by Prince Cantacuzene's note 
of February 20/8, 1893, such action by the Russian consul at New York was shown to 
be "according to the instructions of his Government." 

I can sincerely assure you that the continuation of this practice is as embarrassing 
as it is painful to my Government, especially when it is on the part of a nation for whose 
government and people such intimate friendship has so long been manifested by the 
United States. I am happy that in this spirit I can frankly submit the matter to your 
excellency with the sincere hope that assurance can be given that such practices will 
be henceforth interdicted on the part of Russian officials located within the juris- 
diction of the United States. 

I avail, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1057.) 



Mr. Uhl to Mr. Pierce. 

Department of State, 
Washington, June 3, 1895, 
Sir: I have received Mi-. Breckinridge's No. 71, of the 17th ultimo, inclosing copy 
of his note to the Russian foreign office in regard to the refusal of the Russian consul 
general at New York, to vise passports for American citizens of Jewish faith. 
His note is approved . 

I am, etc., Edwin F. Uhl, Acting Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1058.) 



180 TERMIJiTATIOlSr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Mr. Pierce to Mr. Uhl. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, June IS, 1895. 

Sir: Referring to your No. 46, of April 26, and to Mr. Breckinridge's reply thereto, 
No. 71, of May 17, in which he inclosed -a copy of his note to Prince Lobanow on the 
subject of the refusal of the Russian consul at New York to vis6 the passports of 
Israelites, I have the honor to say that in a recent conversation which I have had with 
the prince, the subject being referred to, I took occasion to call his excellency's atten- 
tion to the importance of the Hebrews as a class in the United States, referring to their 
numbers, condition, and influence in the community as potential factors in a country 
governed, as is ours, by the will of the people. Prince Lobanow expressed himself as 
impressed with its importance, and, making a note of the matter, said he would consult 
with the minister of the interior on the subject at an early day. 

Since then I have had occasion to call several times on Baron Osten-Sacken, to 
whom all questions in the foreign office relating to Israelites have been intrusted. 
In the course of the inquiries as to whether the two gentlemen of Hebrew faith referred 
to in Mr. Breckinridge's dispatch above mentioned would be permitted to enter 
Russia, the matter of vis6 of passports has come up, and Baron Osten-Sacken has 
informed me that he received Mr. Breckinridge's note from Prince Lobanow, accom- 
panied by a memorandum calling special attention to the subject. 

Regarding the entry of foreign Jews into Russia, Baron Osten-Sacken states the posi- 
tion of Russia to be, that she looks upon their presence in the Empire as prejudicial 
to the Russian people, that certain numbers of them being here she must take care of 
them, and that she proposes to do in her own way and according to her own views as 
to the best interests of all Russian subjects. That viewing the Jewish question as she 
does, as one of race and not of religion, but in which the two questions are insepara- 
ble, so far as her purposes are concerned, she refuses to permit foreign Jews of any 
nationality to enter her borders and swell the number already here. For this reason 
the Government has instructed all Russian consuls in all countries to refuse the vis6 
of passports of foreign Jews. On the other hand and speaking of his own opinion, as 
the real purpose of the laws forbidding foreign Jews to enter Russia is to prevent their 
settlement here and their engaging in trade in Russian territory, and not to prevent 
the entrance of toiu"ists, temporary sojourners, or Jews whose purpose in coming is 
not of an objectionable nature to the Government, Baron Osten-Sacken said that in 
his opinion there should be a change in the present practice regarding the admission 
of foreign Jews. 

I expressed the hope that the Imperial Government would find it compatible with 
its policy to admit American citizens into Russia without inquiry as to their religious 
opinions or race, upon presentation of their passports. That with us the Hebrews 
had proved themselves to be good and law-abiding citizens, who prospered without 
preying upon others, but that whatever might be the opinion of the Imperial Govern- 
ment on this question, the interpretation and application of the Federal laws discour- 
age citizens of the United States of all creeds taldng up permanent residence in a 
foreign country and continuing to claim the protection of our country as such citizens; 
that such citizenship involves certain obligations which require a residence in our 
country, and therefore it is unlikely that Hebrews bearing American passports would 
become permanently settled in Russia. This Baron Osten-Sacken admitted was a 
forcible argument, and he expressed himself as hopeful that it would be possible to 
bring about a satisfactory revision of Russian practice as regards the admission of 
American Jews into the Empire. 

At the same time, he said that were an answer to Mr. Breckinridge's note de- 
manded, the reply could not be favorable. That the laws of Russia are framed with 
regard to her own views of her own good. I took occasion to point out to the baron 
that the purport of Mr. Breckinridge's note was to protest against the extraterritorial 
act of an agent of a foreign government, upon our soil, applying a religious test to 
citizens of the United States, an act not constitutionally within the power of any 
officer of the Government to perform, and not to criticize the Russian laws. 
• Under these circumstances, presenting a hopeful prospect of securing a more satis- 
factory condition of affairs in this vexed question, and as pressing for the principle 
seemed to endanger complications, I felt that the discretionary clause in your No. 46 
should deter me from taking the responsibility of insisting on a reply to the note in 
question at the present juncture. I therefore requested Baron Osten-Sacken to hold 
the note in abeyance for the present. To this he assented and agreed to hold it as a 
memorandum of the case. 

Herbert H. D. Pierce, 

Charge d' Affaires ad interim. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1058.) 



TEEMINATION OP THE TKEATY OP 1832. 181 

Mr. Adee to Mr. Pierce. 

Department of State, 
Washington, July 5, 1895. 

Sir: I received your No. 91 of the ISth. ultimo, reporting your interviews at the 
Russian foreign office in the matter of the refusal of the Russian consular officers in the 
United States to vis6 the passports issued by this Government to its citizens of Jewish 
faith. 

Your conclusion that it is inexpedient to press the complaint to a formal answer at 
present appears to be discreet, but the department must express its deep regret that 
you have encountered in the foreign office a reluctance to consider the matter in the 
light in which this Government has presented it. The Russian Government can not 
expect that its course in asserting inquisitorial authority in the United States OAer 
citizens of the United States as to their religious or civil status can ever be acceptable 
or even tolerable to such a Government as ours, and continuance in such a coiu-se after 
ova views have been clearly but considerately made known may trench upon the 
limits of consideration. 

I must, however, caution you against any suggestion of retaliatory or resentful action 
on our part. A due sense of national dignity constrains this Government to avoid all 
appearance of a miniatory policy in its dealings with other powers. In this matter, 
especially, it is to be borne in mind that each Government is the judge for itself of 
the extent to which foreign consuls may be permitted to act under their own laws 
within its territories, and that such permission is determined by the corresponding 
exequatur. 

The United States conspicuously illustrate their convictions on this subject in 
relation to their own consuls. The custom laws of the United States require the 
administration of a consular oath to exporters presenting manifests of goods for cer- 
tification; but upon the representations of certain European Governments, among 
them Great Britain and Germany, that the administration of such an oath by a foreign 
consul to a subject of the country is an invasion of the judicial independence thereof, 
om" consuls have been enjoined to refrain from the act complained of in all cases 
affecting a subject of a sovereign of the country where they reside. It might, however, 
have been deemed entirely competent for the Governments of Great Britain and 
Germany to insert in the consular exequatur an express inhibition of the obnoxious act. 
I am, etc., 

Alvey a. Adee, Acting Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1059.) 



Mr. Adee to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department of State, 
Washington, July 19, 1895. 
Sir; Referring to the department's No. 46 of April 15 last and No. 92 of the 5th 
instant, in regard to the refusal of Russian consular officers in the United States to vis6 
the passports of American citizens of Jewish faith, I send you a copy of a letter addressed 
by the Russian consul general in New York to a citizen of the United States who had 
presented a department passport. It illustrates the inquisitorial function assumed in 
regard to the religious faith of our citizens by Russian agents within our domestic 
jurisdiction. 

I am, etc., Alvey A. Adee, 

Acting Secretary. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1060.) 



Mr. Peterson to Mr. Waix. 

Imperial Russian Consulate General, 

New York, June 27, 1895. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of June 26, inclosing passport and $1.20, I would 
inform you that before your passport can be vis6ed you must inform me where you were 
born and what your religion is — if Christian or Jew. 

I shall retain your passport and fee until receipt of your answer. 
Respectfully, 

C. G. Peterson, Vice Consul 

(For the Consul General). 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1061.) 



182 TERMHSTATION OF THE TKBATY OP 1832. 

Mr. Olarowsky to Mr. Waix. 

Impeeial Russian Consulate General, 

New York, July 1, 1895. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 28th ultimo, 
and desire to inform you that I can not vise your passport. You must get permission 
from the ministry of the interior at St. Petersburg to visit Russia before I can vis6 
your passport. 

Herewith passport and postal note. 

Respectfully, A. E. Olarowsky, 



(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1061.) 



Consul General. 



Mr. Waix to Mr. Olney. 

Boston, July 15, 1895. 
Sir: As I am a citizen of the United States of America and would like to go for a 
short time on some business to Russia, and as I have sent my passport, signed by 
your honor the 18th of last June, No. 654, to the consul general of Russia, A. E. Olar- 
owsky, in New York, to vis6 it, and as you will please see from the answers of the 
consuls, certified copies inclosed, he refused to vise it (my passport) on account that 
I am a Jew by religion, therefore I have the honor to ask you to advise me how shall 
I do, as without the vis6 of the consul they won't let me pass the frontier of Russia. 
Your obedient servant, 

Maior Waix. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1061.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. 

No. 116.] ■ Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 24, 1895. 

(Received Aug. 13.) 

Sir: Referring to Mr. Pierce's No. 91, of June 13, 1895, relating to the distinction 
made by the Russian consul at New York against Hebrew citizens of the United States 
in viseing passports issued by our Government, I have now to submit the case to you 
for further instructions. In this connection I inclose herewith copy and translation 
of Prince Lobanow's note of July 18 in reply to my note of May 17 presenting the mat- 
ter to the Russian Government. Copy of my first note was sent to the department 
with the legation's No. 71, of May 17. 

In the present inclosure referred to Prince Lobanow stated the case from the Russian 
standpoint quite fully and with great kindness and moderation of spirit, and he 
expresses the hope that his explanation will prove satisfactory to the United States. 

I inclose also copy of my reply to the above note. In my reply I express no opinion, 
of course, as to the sufficiency of Prince Lobanow's response, but confine myself to a 
statement of the case as it appears to me to be presented at the present time; state 
that I submit the matter to my Government, reciprocate the kind sentiments 
expressed, and ask for a copy of the law and regulations requiring consuls to make 
this distinction, in order that I may forward them in connection with the case. This 
request was prompted by the fact that while Prince Lobanow makes the interesting 
declaration that the Russian practice is not because of religious faith, yet he does not 
say what else it is. I will transmit these papers as soon as they can be obtained. _ 

In addition to the foregoing correspondence, I have conferred quite fully with 
both Prince Lobanow and Baron Osten-Sacken, the latter having special charge of 
Hebrew matters. These conferences further revealed the difficulty that even the 
most enlightened Russians have in realizing the nature of our institutions and in 
separating a question of extraterritoriality from questions internal to themselves. 
I am happy to say, however, that both of these gentlemen discussed the matter in 
a spirit of the utmost good will and consideration for the United States, and I am 
sure that they fully reciprocate our desire to settle this matter in a way alike honor- 
able and considerate to both countries. 

In discussing the relative gravity and importance of the issue Baron Osten-Sacken 
asked me to give him the language of our organic law in regard to religious liberty. 
I tried to make our position in this regard plain to him in my note of June 25, copy 



TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 183 

of which is inclosed. It may not be improper to add that of course this does not 
pretend to represent any language or instruction from the department upon this 
point; but it is simply a statement of my own belief as expressed in the scope of 
conversational discussion. Baron Osten-Sacken laid some stress upon the cus- 
tomary latitude which he claims is granted to consuls by other nations in visaing 
passports, saying that even Great Britain does not object to the practice of which we 
complain. I replied that I had no information upon that point, and consequently 
could say nothing about it; that doubtless, if he was correct, there was some suffi- 
cient reason for it in the institutions of Great Britain, but that with us the case was 
certainly different; that our course would be the same with any nation, and that in 
such a matter I did not see how we could accept the practice of other powers as a 
guide for ourselves. 

At this point I will remark that Mr. Adee's No. 92, of July 3, relating to the sub- 
ject of this dispatch, the receipt of which I now acknowledge, alluded to the limita- 
tions upon consuls and instanced our receding from certain requirements upon the 
objection of the British Government that "the administration of an oath by a for- 
eign consul to a subject of the country is an invasion of the judicial independence 
thereof." 

As this dispatch was received, however, after the receipt of Prince Lobanow's 
present note, I have not used this interesting point, the stage having been reached 
for submitting the whole business to the department to be passed upon in the con- 
nection in which that argument would apply. 

The first and chief difficulty so far experienced has been to get the Russian Gov- 
ernment to consider this question separately and simply as it is presented by the 
United States apart from any collateral question. 

As the record shows, former discussion has largely involved the general Jewish ques- 
tion, particularly as presented by the internal policy of Russia. So long as an ulte- 
rior purpose of this character is in any degree suspected the Russian Government will 
consider that to be the real issue it has to meet, and will politely but consistently 
refuse to amend its ways. 

The next difficulty has been to secure a due apprehension of the real nature and 
importance of the matter, even after it has been separately considered. It is quite 
difficult for Russians to consider it as more than an administrative regulation pitted 
against their regulations, changeable at the will of some high official, and meant only 
to serve purposes of convenience. 

I have politely but consistently refused to enter into any discussion in this connec- 
tion except upon the precise proposition submitted by the department, and I have 
iterated and reiterated that proposition, to the exclusion of all others, as clearly and 
as pointedly as I could. 

In case Prince Lobanow's statement is not deemed a sufficient answer to the de- 
mands of the United States I think a reply to that effect will find the Russian Govern- 
ment ready, in good faith, to sqek some other adjustment. This may be on instruc- 
tions to their consuls in the United States to vise all passports issued by the depart- 
ment, or it may be a proposition to instruct them to vis6 none. I have discussed both 
of these propositions with Baron Osten-Sacken, urging the safety to Russia, in dealing 
with our class of Hebrews, of the former course, and expressing the hope that the latter 
proposal would not be deemed necessary. 

In the foregoing I have tried to put you in possession of every phase of this matter 
as it now stands, and I respectfully request your further instruction at your con- 
venience. 

I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1061.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Baron Osten-Sacken. 

Legation op The United States, 

St. Petersburg, June 25, 1895. 
Your Excellency: Referring to our recent conversation upon the subject of the 
exercise of consular or foreign jurisdiction within the limits of the United States 
upon matters respecting a religious establishment or belief, I now comply with your 
request for a statement of the language of our Constitution with reference to the power 
of the United States Government itself to exercise such jirrisdiction. 

I will just call your attention to the peculiar character of our constitutional require- 
ments. 



184 TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

The States existed separately and independently before the General Government 
existed. They created the General Government. It is true that many new States 
have been admitted into the Union since the original States created the Government, 
but this has been out of territory originally ceded to the General Government by the 
States — land which at that time lay beyond the settled zone — or out of land since 
acquired by the General Government by purchase or conquest, and in a way originally 
provided for. 

So when the States created the General Government they "granted" and "dele- 
gated " certain powers to it, as enumerated in the Constitution, and they retained all 
the other powers themselves. Our Government has very great powers. It is supreme 
within the limits of those powers, but the point is that it can lawfully do nothing 
unless the power to do so has been granted to it. 

It is a very serious matter to us, then, when our Government is desired to conform 
to a policy, if the power to do so has not been delegated to it. It can not assume the 
power or get it in any Mother way except by a change of the Constitution granting 
the Government that power. 

The very great difficulty of effecting a change in the Constitution will be readily 
seen when it is stated that it takes two. thirds of both branches of Congress, or two- 
thirds of the States to propose an amendment, and after it is proposed it requires a 
majority vote in three-fourths of the States to adopt it. Such is the difficulty that no 
changes have been made except at two periods of our history. The first was the 
period, just after the formation of our Government, ending in 1804. Then there was 
no change until 1865, at the close of the Civil War, when certain changes were made 
as the result of that great war. 

Although Article IX of the amendment of 1790 says: "The enumeration in the 
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others 
retained by the people," and Article X of the same group of amendments says, "The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to 
the States are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people," yet in the face of 
all this, although Congress has not been granted any power in regard to religious mat- 
ters, so great was the fear of the States and the people that Congress might upon pretext 
attempt such legislation that the first of all the amendments, Article I, says, "Con- 
gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof." 

Thus, you will see, my Government is prohibited in the most positive manner by 
the very law of its existence from even attempting to put any form of limitation upon 
any of its citizens by reason of his religious belief. How, then, can we permit this to 
be done by others? To say that they can thereby be discriminated against by foreign 
Governments, and are only safeguarded against their own, would be a remarkable 
position for us to occupy. 

Fortunately we approach this matter in a spirit of friendship and reciprocal considera- 
tion and respect which has always marked the intercourse of our countries, and I am 
happy to say that it grows with time. I need not say that it will afford me the greatest 
pleasure to respond to any further requests with which I may be honored; and I do not 
doubt for a moment that upon full consideration an adjustment will be found alike con- 
sistent, honorable, and fully satisfactory to both of our Governments. 
I avail, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. • 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1063.) 



Prince Lohanow to Mr. Breckinridge. 

St. Petersburg, June 26, 1895. 

Mr. Minister: I have not failed to devote the most serious attention to the contents 
of the note which you have had the goodness to address to me, under date of May 5 last, 
on the subject of the difficulties which the vis6 of passports, by the Russian consulate- 
general at New York, of people of the Jewish faith under American jurisdiction en- 
counters. 

You are good enough to express the opinion that the refusal interposed by the Rus- 
sian consular authority to the request for a vis6 is contrary to the American Constitu- 
tion, which does not allow that a citizen of the United States should be deprived of his 
rights by reason of the faith he professes. I desire first and foremost to make this dis- 
tinction, that the refusal to vise, which has been given in certain cases by our consular 
authorities, is in nowise founded on objections properly religious. Indeed, if it was 
at all the fact of belonging to the Jewish religion whi(;h was an obstacle for certain 



TERMIWATIOlsr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 185 

foreigners to be admitted into Russia, the law would extend this interdiction to all 
the members of that religion. 

Now, on the contrary, it recognizes formally the right of whole categories of Israelites 
to enter Russia, and the selection which it has made of these very categories proves 
that it has been guided in this question solely by considerations of an internal admini- 
strative character which have nothing in common with a religious point of view. It is 
not necessary for me to say to you, Mr. Minister, that the broadest spirit of toleration 
for all cults forms the very basis of Russian laws; the Jewish religion is no more pro- 
hibited in Russia than in the United States; it is even legally recognized here and 
enjoys here certaiii privileges. 

But when, for motives of internal order, Russian law raises obstacles to the entrance 
of certain categories of foreigners upon our territory, the Russian consuls, who can 
neither be ignorant of nor overlook the law, are in the necessity of refusing the vis6 to 
persons who they know belong in these categories. 

I will add even that in forewarning on the spot the persons who address themselves 
to obtain vises, they save them difficulties and dangers which they would encounter 
later if they had not been advised. 

It is a question, moreover, of a general legislative measure, which applies to certain 
categories of Israelites of all countries whatsoever. 

As to the American Constitution, I must confess that it seems to me to be here 
beside the question. The article of the Constitution which you were good enough to 
mention, and which prescribes that no religion is prohibited in the United States, is, 
by the very nature of things, placed outside all prejudice by the consular authority. 
He has neither to prohibit nor authorize the exercise in America of any cult; and the 
fact of his vise being accorded or refused does not encroach upon the article in ques- 
tion. The refusal of the vis6 is not at all an attack upon any established religion; 
it is the consequence of a foreign law, which only has its effect outside of the territory 
of the Union. 

I enjoy the hope, Mr. Minister, that the preceding considerations will be accepted 
by your Government in the spirit which inspires them, and that the just respect 
which is held in the United States for the precepts of the laws will make it under- 
stood that the Russian consular authorities have acted in this matter as they have 
from necessity. The frank and complete exposition which I have the honor to make 
of our point of view in this question appears to me to accord the better with the rela- 
tions of close friendship which exist between the two Governments and the two coun- 
tries — relations to which in your note, Mr. Minister, you pay a respect so merited, and 
to which we also, for our part, attach the highest value. 

Receive, Mr. Minister, etc., Lobanow. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1064.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Prince Lobanow. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 8, 1895. 

Your Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 
June 26 in regard to the distinction made by the Russian consul at New York in visaing 
passports against Hebrew citizens of the United States. 

As your excellency is aware, this practice of making such distinctions within the 
jurisdiction of the United States has long been considered by my Government as an 
exercise of authority within our country in plain violation of our institutions and laws, 
and that as such it has been the subject of respectful but most earnest protests. 

The basis of this distinction has always been considered by my Government to be 
the religious faith of this class of our citizens, and in this form it has been presented 
and considered. 

In your excellency's present note you state that this distinction is in no wise founded 
on objections of a religious character; that certain classes of Jews are permitted to enter 
the Empire; that it is for the purposes of internal order that the Russian law places 
obstacles to the entrance of certain categories of foreigners; that Russian consuls can 
not overlook the law; that its administration upon the spot saves the applicant greater 
difficulties at a subsequent period; that the question is one of general legislation, 
applicable to certain categories of Israelites in all countries; that the article of our 
Constitution relating to religious liberty does not seem to apply to the case; that the 
Russian consul does not authorize or prohibit the exercise of any religion in America; 
that the refusal of a vise does not militate against any established religion, it being the 
consequence of a foreign law of an administrative character, which has no effect except 
outside of the territory of the Union. 



186 TERMIIsrATIOIT OF THE TEE AT Y OF 1832. 

Your excellency further has the goodness to express the hope that your considerations 
stated will be acceptable to my Government, citing the foregoing as a full statement of 
the point of view of the Imperial Government and accompanying the whole with 
friendly sentiments, thoroughly reciprocal of our own, and which I beg to assure you 
is the spirit in which my Government sincerely desires to consider these and all 
differences with the Imperial Government. 

I have thus attempted to recite particularly and accm-ately the points in your 
excellency's note, for in this difference — so radical, springing from institutions so 
different and embarrassed somewhat by differences of speech — I have realized the 
obstacles to a complete mutual understanding of the issue. 

I transmit your excellency's note to my Government. 

In this note therefore I do not attempt to reply to your note as a response to xne 
position and protests of my Government; but I have confined myself to a statement 
of the case as it presents itself to me at this time that any obscurities, if they exist, may 
be cleared away, and I wish further to respectfully call attention to a seeming mis- 
conception of my note of June 13, which followed my note of May 5, submitting 
this case. 

The latter note was written in compliance with a reguest which I had the honor to 
receive from Baron Osten-Sacken to state and explain the language of our organic 
(constitutional) law upon the subject of legislation by the United States affecting the 
free exercise of religious belief. 

Our Constitution does not say that Congress shall not make a law simply prohibiting 
our authorizing a religious exercise or belief, as your excellency seems to understand; 
it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " Certainly if the law deprives any people or 
person of a certain faith, because of that faith, of all or of any part of the rights, privi- 
leges, and immunities enjoyed by other citizens or class of citizens it is made "respect- 
ing" that religion and it militates against "the free exercise thereof" as much as if 
the sect had been mentioned in the title of the act and the consequences had been 
named as pains and penalties for the conscientious belief and observances entertained 
and practiced. 

This is the opinion I tried to make perfectly clear, but your excellency now states 
that religion is not the basis of the distinction made in our country against certain 
classes of our citizens. 

That the case may be fully submitted to my Government I will, in conclusion, ask 
your excellency to kindly have me supplied with a copy of the laws and regulations 
relating to this distinction, for, while the supposed basis is disavowed, the actual basis 
is not stated. 

I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1066.) 



Mr. Adee to Mr. Breckinridge. 

No. 107.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 22, 1895. 

Sir: I have received your No. 116, of the 24th ultimo, giving the correspondence 
between yourself and the Russian foreign office on the subject of the visaing by Rus- 
sian consuls in this country of passports issued to American citizens of Jewish faith. 
Your presentation of this Government's view of that question meets with the approval 
of this department. 

Apart from the constitutional objections to the discrimination made by Russian 
consular officers against American Jews, this Government can never consent that a 
class embracing many of its most honored and valuable citizens shall within its own 
territory be subjected to invidious and disparaging distinctions of the character 
implied in refusing to vise their passports. For, notwithstanding Prince Lobanow's 
suggestion that his Government's consular regulation upon the subject under con- 
sideration does not apply to all Israelites and therefore can not be regarded as a dis- 
crimination against them on religious grounds, the fact remains that the interrogato- 
ries propounded to applicants for the consular vis6 relate to religious faith and upon 
the response depends the consul's actions. 

Viewed in the light of an invidious discrimination tending to discredit and humili- 
ate American Jews in the eyes of their fellow-citizens, it is plain that the action ol 
Russian consular officers does produce its effect within American territory, and not 
exclusively in Russian jurisdiction. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 187 

But the Russian discrimination against American Jews is not confined simply to 
the matter of viseing passports. This department was informed a few years since by 
the Russian minister here that Russian consuls in this country would refuse authen- 
tication to legal documents for use in Russia when Jews are ascertained to be interested. 
This is not merely an unjust and invidious discrimination against Jews, but would 
seem to be plainly a violation of the spirit of Article X of the treaty of 1832 between this 
country and Russia in respect of the property rights of American citizens in that 
country. 

Since you have received my instruction No. 92 of July 5 you may incorporate the 
substance of that, together with the views herein expressed, in your next note to the 
Russian Government upon this subject. The text of the Russian law, of which you 
have very properly requested a copy, is awaited with interest here, but it is not 
deemed probable that the question, viewed in the light in which I have just consid- 
ered it, will be affected by any municipal legislation of the Empire. 
I am, etc., 

Alvey a. Adee, Acting Secretary . 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1067.) 



Prince Lobanow to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Department of Internal Relations, 

St. Petersburg, August 12, 1895. 

Mr. Minister : Answering the request which you have had the goodness to express 
in yom' note of July 8 last, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a translation, 
from the most recent authentic texts, of the Russian laws governing the conditions of 
entrance and establishment of foreign Israelites upon the territory of the Empire. 

Since you have had the goodness to refer to it, and in conformance with what I have 
had the honor to explain to you in my preceding note, the Russian law places certain 
restrictions on the entrance of Israelites in question on our territory; but these restric- 
tions are far from implying an absolute interdiction, and they have their source in 
considerations of a kind essentially administrative and economic. 

The Imperial Government, having already many millions of Jewish subjects, only 
admits their cogeners of foreign allegiance when they seem to present a guaranty that 
they will not be a charge and a parasitic element in the State, but will be able, on the 
contrary, to be useful to the internal development of the country. It is because he 
had it in view to protect himself from an influx of a proletariat of this nature that the 
Russian legislator has established clearly the categories of Israelites of whom entrance 
on our territory can be admitted. 

Receive, IVIr. Minister, etc., Lobanow. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p, 1068.) 



Mr. Brecldnridge to Mr. Olney. 

Legation of The United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 28, 1895. 
Sir: Referring to my No. 116, of July 24, in regard to the refusal of the Russian 
consul at New York to vise the passports of American citizens of Jewish descent, I now 
have to inclose copy and translation of a note dated August 12, from Prince Lobanow, 
in response to my request for a copy of the laws and regulations bearing upon the 
administration of foreign Jews. 

I also inclose copy and translation of the laws in question. 
I have, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1068.) 

[The Russian laws relative to tlie entry of foreign Israelites.] 

1. Foreign Israelites and especially those who are agents of important foreign com- 
mercial houses, are permitted to visit the manufacturing and commercial localities of 
Russia, known as such, and to reside there a certain length of time according to the 
circumstances of the case. It is the province of the ministry of the interior to authorize 



188 TERMIlSrATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

the requests presented to this end by the Israelites in question. But in the case of a 
banker or chief of a commercial house of known importance, the legations and con- 
sulates may, even without previous authorization from the ministry of the interior, 
issue and yis6 passports for them to enter Russia, according to the same regulations 
which apply to all foreigners who come upon Russian territory, but under the condition 
of informing the ministry of the interior of every passport granted or visaed for an Israel- 
ite of that category. (Art. 289, T. XIV of Res. of Laws, edit, of 1890.) 

2. Foreign Israelites are not permitted to establish themselves in Russia, nor to 
become Russian subjects. 

Remark. — Exception to this rule is made in favor of Israelites native of Central Asia 
without distinction as to the subjection to which they belong. These Israelites, on pres- 
entation by them of a certificate of good conduct in due form, may receive from the 
ministry of the interior, and from the respective governors-general authorization to 
become Russian subjects, being included in the rolls of the population of the frontier 
towns of the Province of Orenburg or of Turkestan, under condition of their entering 
the merchant guilds, and being admitted to the enjoyment of the rights conferred on 
Jewish Russian subjects. (Art. 992, T. IX of Res. of Laws, edit. 1890.) 

3. Among foreign Israelites there are permitted to establish themselves in a perma- 
nent manner in the regions where Israelites enjoy the right of permanent establish- 
ment, only the following categories: 

First. Those whom the Government judge necessary to exercise the functions of 
rabbi. 

Second. Physicians whom the Government can employ in the administration of 
the war and navy. 

Third. Those who come to Russia for the purpose of founding factories or works, 
except brandy distilleries, and who furnish proof that they provide a capital for that 
purpose of at least 15,000 rubles. These Israelites on entering Russia must engage in 
writing to found these establishments within three years. In default of this engage- 
ment they will be expelled from the terrtiory of the Empire. If this engagement 
has been fulfilled they may become Russian subjects on matriculating for this pur- 
pose according to law. 

Fourth. Operatives whom the Jewish manufacturers bring to work in the factories. 
They are admitted on presentation, first, of their passports; second, of certificates of 
Russian legations or consulates containing statements of their condition, of their 
former occupation, of their trade, of the name of the person who brought them, and 
of the purpose for which they are destined. 

These operatives are admitted to live permanently in the regions where Jews have 
the right to establish themselves permanently, and can take oath for the purpose of 
being received into Russian subjection after not less than five years of sojourn in the 
factories, after they have received from their patrons and from local authority a cer- 
tificate of good habits and industry. (Art. 290, T. XIV of Res. of Laws, edit. 1890.) 

4. Foreigners are authorized to take out patents for engaging in commerce (certifi- 
cates of guilds) and trade, and enjoy all the rights pertaining to the possession of these 
patents on the same footing as persons born in the subjection of the Empire. 

Remark. — With regard to Jewish foreign subjects, the following rules are established: 
It is permitted to foreign Jews coming to Russia and who are favorably known for 
their social position and for the extent of their commercial business — and this each 
time in virtue of a special authorization granted on agreement to that effect between 
the ministers of finance, of the interior, and of foreign affairs — to engage in commerce in 
the empire and to establish in it banking offices, on being furnished with a patent of 
commerce of the fu'st guild for that purpose. It is permitted equally to these Israelites 
to establish factories, to acquire and hold or lease real estate, except land inhabited 
in the country, observing the provisions of the laws relative to civil conditions. 

Those Israelites who come into Russia to buy Russian products and export them 
may receive equally commercial patents of the first guild, after an agreement has been 
established to that effect each time between the ministers of finance, of the interior, 
and of foreign affairs. Foreign Israelites, especially those who are agents of important 
commercial houses, can visit the manufacturing and commercial localities known as 
such, in Russia, in virtue of the provisions prescribed in the regulations of passports. 
(Art. 1001, T. IX of Res. of Laws, edit, of 1890.) 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1069.) 



TERMIFATIOlSr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832 189 

Mr. Pierce to Mr. Olneij. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 4, 1895. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Adee's No. 107 of August 22, 
relating to the viseing of passports issued to American citizens of Jewish faith by 
Pvussian consuls in the United States. 

Upon consultation with the minister, before taking his leave of absence, it was 
thought it would be more prudent to await your reply to the legation's No. 133 of 
August 28, inclosing copy of Prince Lobanow's note of August 24 and of the Russian 
laws bearing upon the question of admission of Jews into the Empire, before addressing 
the Imperial Government again upon the subject. 

The views expressed both in Mr. Adee's No. 107 of August 22 and No. 92 of July 5 
have been attentively read and will be carefully borne in mind for future action 
at an early date upon this important question. 

Herbert H. D. Pierce. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1070.) 



Mr. TJhl to Mr. Peirce. 

No. 130.] Department op State, 

Washington, October 23, 1895. 

Sir: Your No. 148 of the 4th instant has been received. You therein state that 
upon consultation with Minister Breckinridge, before he took his leave of absence, it 
was thought that it would be more prudent to await the department's reply to the 
legation's No. 133, of August 28 last, inclosing a copy of Prince Lobanow's note of 
August 24 and of the Russian laws bearing upon the question of the admission of Jews 
into the Empire, before again addressing the Imperial Govermnent pursuant to Mr. 
Adee's instruction No. 107, of August 22, upon the subject of the withholdment of the 
vis6s to passports of American citizens of Jewish faith by Russian consuls in the 
United States. 

Mr. Breckinridge's No. 133 has been examined attentively and marked for eventual 
publication in the printed volumes of diplomatic correspondence. Its inclosure did 
not directly deal with the question presented in the department's previous instructions. 
The prohibition of a vise to the passjoorts of American Jews by Russian consuls in the 
United States does not distinctly appear therein, although its existence in some form 
may be inferred from a footnote stating that in virtue of an im]ierial order of March 14, 
1891, Russian legations and consulates may without the previous authorization of the 
minister of the interior issue passports and vises to Jews who are bankers and chiefs of 
important commercial houses, and that this distinction is extended also to vis6s of 
passports to commercial travelers, representatives, clerks, and agents of such com- 
mercial houses when the bearers are duly certified by the principal thereof and the 
consul has knowledge of the standing of the house. 

This does not touch the essential question to whcich the department's previous 
instructions have invited attention, namely, the assumption by the agents of Russia 
in the United States of inquisitorial functions touching the religious faith of appli- 
cants for passports. If anything, it presents the subject in a still more unfavorable 
light, for it seems that those Russian agents in a foreign territory may, in their discre- 
tion, inquire into the business standing of the principal of the commercial house em- 
ploying a Hebrew agent, and act favorably or unfavorably according to their judgment 
of its "importance." 

The question is not whether the Russian Government by imperial order or minis- 
terial regulation has directed its consuls to make such inquiries in respect to the 
religious faith or business transactions of American citizens, but whether the Imperial 
Government has any right to make such inquisition in a foreign territory when the 
effect may be to disregard the Government's certification of the fact of citizenship; 
or, assuming for the argument's sake, but not by way of admission, that such a right 
may technically exist, the question remains whether the assumption to exercise it in 
the face of the temperate but earnest remonstrance of this Government against foreign 
interference with the private concerns of its citizens is in accordance with those courte- 
ous principles of comity which this Government is so anxious to observe in all its 
relations with foreign States, and which it naturally expects from them in return. 
I am, etc., 

Edwin F. Uhl, Acting Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1070.) 



190 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. 

No. 181.] Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 8, 1895. 

(Received Dec. 23.) 

Sir: Referring to Mr. Uhl's No. 130, of October 23, regarding the refusal of Russian 
consuls in the United States to vis6 the passports of certain American citizens of 
Jewish descent, and to the proceedings had in connection therewith, I now have 
to inclose a copy of my note of this date to Prince Lobanow upon the subject. 

In the same connection reference should be had to Mr. Adee's No. 107, of August 
22, and No. 92, of July 5. 

I wish to call attention to certain changes which have taken place, in the form at 
least, of this controversy as it has progressed . 

The first distinction in this particular point in our long and varied controversies 
with the Russian Government about the rights of our citizens of Hebrew descent 
and the expression to which most frequent reference has been made, was Mr. Wharton's 
dispatch No. 60, of February 28, 1893, to my predecessor, Mr. ^T.iite. But in that 
dispatch the issue was largely colored by the religious feature which seems to give 
rise to this objectionable policy, as is shown by such expressions as "a religious 
inquisitorial function," "a religious test," "Jewish faith," etc. 

The correspondence has reflected and to quite an extent has been limited by this 
aspect of the question until the position of the department was made broader and 
clearer by the dispatches of Mr. Uhl and Mr. Adee, previously referred to. 

I have incorporated the substance of these dispatches in my present note to Prince 
Lobanow. In my brief reference therein to our treaty rights I have been guided 
chiefly by Mr. Blaine's dispatch No. 87, of July 29, 1881, to Mr. Foster, in which 
those rights are fully discussed. 

Referring to the inclosed copy of my note to Prince Lobanow, I will only add that 
while I have sought, of course, to reflect accurately the position and sentiments of 
the Government, and in an entirely respectful manner, yet I have not deemed it 
wise or proper, in the exercise of such discretion as may rest with me, to present the 
case with any less distinctness and vigor than my instructions justify. 
I have, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1071.) 



(Inclosure in No. 181.] 
Mr. Breckinridge to Prince Lobanow. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 6, 1895. 

Your Excellency: Referring to your note of August 12-24, and also to your former 
note of June 26-July 8, both relating to the refusal of Russian consuls in the United 
States to vis6 the passports of certain classes of American citizens of Jewish descent, 
and previously acknowledged, I now have the honor to communicate with you further 
upon the subject. 

I did not fail to transmit to my Government the very careful and temperate argu- 
ments in which your excellency stated the position of the Imperial Government in 
this matter and defended the law under which its officials act. 

Your excellency has the goodness to say that the practice is not based upon the 
religious faith of the persons immediately concerned. I beg to reply that while this 
may alter the appearance, yet it does not change the nature of the case. The religious 
feature was merely the strong incident which seemed to give rise to the erection of 
tribunals within the territory of the United States empowered to accept some and 
to reject others of the certifications of their Government and to make inquisition into 
the faith of their citizens. It is equally obnoxious to the institutions and derogatory 
to the dignity of the United States that their certifications should thus be discrimi- 
nated against from any other cause or that their citizens should be subjected, upon 
their own soil, to inquiries relating to their race, wealth, business pursuits, or to any 
other intrusion upon their rights and into their personal and private affairs. 

Painful as it is to my Government that such discrimination should be made by the 
imperial officials anywhere against its certifications and against any of its citizens 
innocent of crime, and violative as this is believed to be of both their natural and 
treaty rights, yet it is still more objectionable when practiced by foreign tribunals 
erected within our own jurisdiction, guided by an elaborate system of practice against 
the United States and their citizens, and clothed with power to act favorably or 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 191 

unfavorably, according to their uwn judgment of the importance of the case. What- 
ever may be the purpose, this is the effect of such regulations and practices, and 
it is my duty to say to your excellency that they can not be acquiesced in by the 
United States. 

It seems to my Government that it should not be necessary to go to the length to 
which it has been compelled to go in order to demonstrate entirely to the satisfaction 
of the Imperial Government the correctness of its contention in this matter, and 
to secure the prompt cessation of this practice in the United States, for it is not believed 
that any Government will seriously contest that every sovereign State is and must 
be th'e judge for itself of the extent to which foreign consuls may be permitted to act 
under their own laws within its territory, and that such permission may be deter- 
mined by the corresponding exequatur. If there be an exception to this, it must 
be with respect to countries justly held in much less estimation than does or should 
obtain between the United States and Russia. 

The United States conspicuously illustrate theu' convictions on this subject in 
respect to their own consuls. Our custom laws require the administration of a consular 
oath to exporters presenting manifests of goods for certification; but upon the repre- 
sentation of certain European Governments, among them Great Britain and Germany, 
that the administration of such an oath by a foreign consul to a subject of the country 
is an invasion of the judicial independence thereof, our consuls were enjoined to 
refrain from the act complained of in all cases affecting a subject of the sovereign of 
the country where they reside. Such Governments were fully competent to insert 
in the consular exequatur an express inhibition of the obnoxious act; but that fact 
only lends additional legal and moral force to any subsequent protest against acts of 
this character not foreseen. 

I trust that I have been able to make clear to youjr excellency that my Government 
never can and never should consent to these practices. They humiliate within its 
own territory, by invidious and disparaging distinctions, a class embracing many of 
its most honored and valuable citizens, though in such a cause it would contend with 
equal zeal for a single, though the humblest, citizen in the land. 

I am happy to believe that it is in the justice of this claim and in the persuasive 
power of a friendly nation that the strength of this contention lies. My Government 
reels that it has carefully observed in all its earnest but disregarded protests about 
this matter the principles of comity which it is scrupulous to obseive, and it feels 
that it is entitled to a better return than it has received. It does not desire this 
difference to trench upon the just limits of consideration. 

If I have spoken plainly, it is yet with the greatest respect, and because plain but 
respectful words seem to me the best way to remove differences between Governments 
jealoiis of their dignity and rights, and yet moved, as I am sure both are, by a sincere 
desire to do justice and to preserve and increase the honorable friendship which has so 
long subsisted between them. It is in this spirit that I express the hope that this 
protracted and irritating difference may come to a speedy end. 
I avail myself, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckineidge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1072.) 

Mr. Olney to Mr. Breckinridge. 

No, 156.] Department of State, 

Washington, December 27, 1895. 
Sir: I have received your No. 181, of the 6th instant, and have to approve your note 
to Prince Lobanow of that date, in regard to the vise of American passports. 
I am, etc., 

Richard Olney. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1074.) 

ARREST OF JOHN GINZBERG. 

Mr, Tlhl to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department op State, 
Washington, May S, 1895. 
Sir: I inclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert M. Lewis, respecting the case of 
John Ginzberg, a naturalized American citizen, under arrest in Russia. 

It appears that Ginzberg left Russia at the age of 14, four years before any obligation 
to perform rnilitary service could have accrued. He was duly naturalized as an 
American citizen and received a passport from this Department on October 8 last, the 

19831—11 ^13 



192 TEBMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

statements in his application corresponding with those in Mr. Lewis's letter. It is 
said that he was arrested on crossing the Russian frontier, thrown into jail at Minsk 
Pinsk and is now held under surveillance while his case is being considered at St. 
Petersburg. 
You will investigate the case and use your good offices in his behalf. 
I am, etc., 

Edwin F. Uhl, Acting Secretary. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1081.) 



[Inclosure.] 

Mr. Lewis to Mr. Gresham. 

Glasgow, Mont., April 23, 1895. 
Dear Sir: John Ginzberg left this country to visit his parents at Minsk Pinsk, 
Loheshin, Russia, having left Russia 15 years ago when but a boy of 14 years of age. 
He took out his naturalization papers at Wilmington, Del., some years ago, and before 
leaving this country procured a passport for two years. I am in receipt of a letter 
to-day from him stating that when he crossed the Russian border at or near Prostken 
he was arrested, and the authorities took away his certificate of naturalization and pass- 
port, also his clothes, when he was placed in jail at Pinsk. It seems from his letter 
that he is now allowed to go about, but under surveillance, and without his passport 
can not leave. He further says that he understands that his case is to be carried to 
St. Petersburg. I trust that this matter will be promptly taken up by your depart- 
ment, that Mr. Ginzberg may be released, his crime consisting of becoming an Amer- 
ican citizen. Kindly acknowledge receipt and oblige. 

Very respectfully, Robert M. Lewis. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1082.) 



liir. Uhl to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department of State, 
Washington, May 15, 1895. 

Sir: In connection with the department's No. 50 of the 3d instant, directing you 
to investigate and extend your good offices in the case of John Ginzberg, arrested in 
Russia for having, as is understood, evaded military duty, I have now to inclose for 
your further information a copy of a letter from his excellency the governor of 
Montana, of the 9th instant, covering an affidavit of John M. Lewis, of Glasgow, in that 
State, bearing upon the case of Mr. Ginzberg, and a printed copy of his pathetic letter 
detailing the features of his complaint. 

Although I remarked in my previous instruction that Mr. Ginzberg had been granted 
a passport, and that his sworn statements corresponded with those contained in the 
letter from Mr. Robert M. Lewis. I send, out of abundant caution, a copy of Mr. Ginz- 
berg's passport application, dated October 4, 1894. 

It is possible, as would appear from a remark in his printed letter of March 26 last 
to Mr. Lewis, that his case had been brought to your attention prior to the receipt of 
the department's No. 50, but if not I am confident that you will, upon its arrival, 
do whatever you properly can to effect Mr. Ginzberg's release should the facts as 
ascertained by you warrant your intervention in his behalf. 
I am, etc., 

Edwin F. Uhl, Acting Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1082.) 



[Inclosure.] 

Mr. Richards to Mr. Gresham. 

Executive Oppice, 
Helena, Mont., May 9, 1895. 
^ Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith for your consideration the affidavit of 
one John M. Lewis, of Glasgow, this State, bearing upon the case of John Ginzberg. 
Si It appears that Ginzberg is an American citizen who is unlawfully detained by the 
Russian authorities and that a release can only be obtained through the kindly offices 
of your department. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 193 

For your further enlightenment I also inclose a copy of a letter written by Mr. 
Ginzberg to Mr. Lewis, as published in the local paper. Mr. Lewis is a reputable 
citizen of this State, and I trust the facts set forth in his affidavit will warrant your 
departnient in prompt and earnest efforts to secure the liberation of Ginzberg and hia 
restoration to his home and friends. 

I am, etc., J. E. Richards, 



Governor of Montana. 



(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1082.) 



[Subinclosure.] 
Affidavit of Mr. Lewis. 



Glasgow, April 29, 1S95. 



State of Montana, County of Valley, ss: 

John M. Lewis, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he was registry agent 
in Glasgow, Mont., for the general election of 1892, and that at that time one John 
Ginzberg exhibited to him his certificate of naturalization as a citizen of the United 
States of America; and that he has known the said John Ginzberg for about four 
years, and is now informed and believes that the said John Ginzberg has been deprived 
of his naturalization papers by the Russian authorities and is unlawfully detained 
at Minsk Pinsk, Loheshin, Russia. Deponent further deposes and says that he has 
seen the letter written by said John Ginzberg describing his detention and confine- 
ment; that he is acquainted with the signature and writing of the said John Ginzberg, 
and has compared with a signature on file written by said John Ginzberg, and that he 
has no doubt the letter was written by the identical John Ginzberg whose naturaliza- 
tion papers he has seen, and he further believes the said John Ginzberg to be a credi- 
ble person and a good citizen of the United States of America. 

John M. Lewis. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of May, 1895. 

[seal.] John J. Kerr, 

Notary Public in and for Valley County, State of Montana. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1083.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 18, 1895. 

Sir: I am in receipt of your No. 50, of May 3, 1895, inclosing copy of a letter from 
Mr. Robert M. Lewis, of Glasgow, Mont., relating to John Ginzberg, a naturalized 
American citizen, under arrest in this country, and instructing me to investigate the 
case and to use my good offices for the prisoner. 

The matter had previously been brought to the attention of the legation by personal 
appeal, and various steps have been taken to effect relief. As the case is of an inter- 
esting class,_I herewith inclose copies of the correspondence in regard to it enumerated 
below, and in additon to this it has been the subject of several visits to the foreign office. 

When I received Mr. Chichkine's note of January 26-February 6, emphatically 
speaking of Ginzberg as a ' 'Russian subject' ' and as ' 'guilty, " thus thrusting an execu- 
tive decree between the prisoner and the United States upon the one hand and the 
courts upon the other, I wrote a pointed note, presenting the case at length, and debated 
between sending that and referring the whole matter to you. I concluded, however, 
to send my brief note of inquiry of February 16-28 . After that matters assumed a more 
amiable phase. 

Ginzberg is, at least at present, among his kinspeople, at considerable liberty, and, 
with the farming season on, he ought to be comfortable. My last note to Prince 
Lobanow, dated April 28-May 10, shows the present status of the case. It will be fol- 
lowed up, and I am in hopes of his release. The copies of all the papers herewith trans- 
mitted present the whole case for your information, and upon which to base any 
instructions that the points may call for. 

I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1084.) 



194 TERMHSrATIOE" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

[Inelosure No. 1.] 
Mr. Robertson to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Hamburg, December 10, 1894. 

Sir: I have the honor to bring the following matter to your official notice: 

Some time in October last there called, at this consulate one John Ginzberg, who 
presented his American certificate of naturalization, and a passport issued by the 
Department of State at Washington. He informed me that he was a native of Russia, 
and was then on his way to pay his former home in Russia a visit. I informed him that 
it would be necessary for him to obtain a vis6 of his passport from the Russian consul 
here before his departure for Russia. A few hours afterwards he returned to this office 
and informed me that the Russian consul had refused to vis6 his passport because he 
had been naturalized without the permission of the Russian Government. I thereupon 
warned Ginzberg not to attempt to cross the frontier without a vis6, especially as he 
was an Israelite. He did not heed my advice, however. 

On October 25 I received a postal card from him, dated Prostken, October 24, in 
which he informed me that the Russian authorities would not let him pass because 
the Russian consul here had refused to vis6 his passport. In reply to this card I sent 
him the inclosed letter, which was returned to me by the post office. 

This morning I received a letter from Ginzberg, of which the inclosed is an exact 
copy. 

I write Ginzberg to-day informing him that I have referred his case to you for such 
action as you may deem proper. 

I am, etc., W. Henry Robertson, Consul. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1084.) 



[Subinclosure.] 

Mr. Ginzberg to Mr. Robertson. 

24 November 1894, 
To the honorable American Counsell. 

Dear Sir: I let you know that I am arrested now by the Russians the Russian 
rulers are trying to put me back to the army which is colled solders for the Russian 
King and I am not able to go out of their power therefore I hombly beseech you to 
deliver me out of their hand and from their power please write to the Russian Rulers 
and ask them to set me free. I was arrested on the Russian gate that is near Prostken 
and the carried me to the place which I gave you my adressa card. _ I pray you my 
honorable counsell to help me Quick as it is possible and give me assistance. 
Your American truly Friend, 

John Ginzber©. 
My addressa: 

Minsk Pinsk, in the thown Loguistion. 
I send you my addressa in the Russian language. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1084.) 



[Inelosure No. 2.] 

Mr. Breclcinridge to Mr. De Giers. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 2-14, 1894. 

Your Excellency: A naturalized American citizen named John Ginzberg, having 
a passport issued by the Department of State at Washington, is reported to be under 
arrest at Loguishin, in the government of Minsk, and the intervention of this legation 
is requested in his behalf. 

I do not know the nature of the charge against this man, and I request your excel- 
lency to have the facts and the nature of the case reported to me as soon as is practi- 
cable. 

^ I avail, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1085.) 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 195 

[Inclosure No. 3.] 
Mr. Chichhine to Mi-. Breckinridge. 

St. Petersburg, December 24, 1894- January 5, 1S95. 
Mr. Minister: Referring to the note of the legation of the United States, dated 
December 2-14, treating of the arrest in the government of Minsk of the man John 
Ginzberg, naturalized citizen of the United States, I have the honor to inform you 
that, according to the information communicated by telegraph by the governor of 
Minsk to the ministry of the interior, the man Ginzberg, whose real name is Schimon, 
but who calls himself Johann or John, had escaped in 1886, military service, and had 
taken refuge in America. Arrested by the Pinsk police, he was recognized by his 
father Janckel Ginzberg and by other individuals, so that there is no doubt in regard 
to his identity. Consequently, according to the order of the governor of Minsk, he 
was delivered to the authorities of justice in virtue of the laws applying to crimes of 
desertion. (Arts. 325, 326, of the Penal Code.) 

Receive, etc , Chichkine. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1085.) 



[Inclosure No. 4.] 
Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Chichkine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, January IS, 1895. 
Your Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note oi 
December 24-January 5, relating to the arrest in the government of Minsk of John 
Ginzberg, otherwise known as Schimon, a naturalized citizen of the United States. 

I take notice of the statement that Ginzberg violated the law in regard to military 
service in 1886 and took refuge in America, and that upon the occasion of his recent 
arrest he was recognized by his father, as well as others, and that he is now in the 
custody of the judicial authorities, in accordance with the laws applicable to the 
crime of desertion. (Arts. 325, 326, of the Penal Code.) 

While it is my duty to render all proper assistance to citizens of the United States, 
whether naturalized or native born, yet from the foregoing statement I feel at liberty 
to ask of your excellency only that this legation be kept informed of the progress and 
conclusion of Ginzberg's case, and that he be secured that humane treatment and a 
speedy and fair trial as, of course, is contemplated by the laws of the Empire. I 
earnestly request that this attention be given to the matter in hand. 
I avail, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1085.) 



1 Inclosure No. 6.J 
Mr. Chichkine to Mr. Breckinridge. 

St. Petersburg, January 25-February 6, 1895. 
Mr. Minister: In your note of the date January 25-13 last, concerning the arrest 
in' the government of Minsk of the Russian subject John Ginzberg, guilty of the crime 
of desertion, you express the hope that the said Ginzberg will be treated with justice 
and humanity. 

You can be assured, Mr. Minister, that it could not be otherwise, the Russian author- 
ities — administrative as well as judicial — being always deeply imbued with senti- 
ments of humanity toward all persons with whom they have to do. 

Receive, Mr. Minister, etc., Chichkine. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1086.) 



196 TEEMIiSTATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 

[Inclosure No. 6.] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Chichkine. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, February 16-28, 1895. 

YotJR Excellency: I have delayed some time in replying to your note of January 
25-February 6 in regard to the case of John (or Schimon) Ginzberg, partly with the 
hope that I might be favored with a further communication of a more explicit character. 

While I have no doubt, nor have I ever entertained or expressed any doubt, of the 
general high standard of humanity and justice of Russian executive and judicial 
officers, yet if your excellency's meaning is that the imperial foreign office is taking 
Buch an interest in the case as will insure comfortable conditions of confinement, 
pending the trial, prevent unreasonable delay, and secure for the prisoner capable 
counsel for his defense, which is sometimes necessary in all countries, and which, I 
take it, is the least that can be requested in a case of this character, I would be glad 
to be explicitly informed of the facts. 

If, upon the other hand, the meaning is that this case in its present status is not an 
acceptable case for diplomatic intervention or correspondence, then I would respect- 
fully beg that the meaning be made clear. 

Permit me, however, to express the sincere hope that the latter is not the meaning 
intended to be conveyed. But, in either event, I am sure you will quite agree with 
me that if any doubt exists in a matter of this character, it is better to dispel it by 
asking for a more explicit statement of the intended meaning. 

I respectfully request that your excellency will kindly favor me with as early reply 
to this note as may be convenient. 

I avail, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1086.) 



Mr. Ginzberg to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Minsk Pinsk in the town of Logitishin, Russia, 

March the 13th, 1895. 
To the greate educated Minister of the U. S. of America in St. Petersburg, 

Russia. 

Gentilemen: I let you know that I am a sittison of the U. S. of America Because I 
lived among the dwellers down there I behaved myselfe among the inhabitends of 
the U. S. of America for 14 years very nicely I am a true democratic man I always 
Paid them my texess and I have done good for the contry every time all the days 
that I lived there I was true to them and they were true to me and it came to pass 
on a time when my heart desiered once for 14 years to see how are my Friends getting 
along in Russia Eui'ope so I took a Passport out of Washington the U. S. of America 
and I have paid them for 2 years and I start to go where my desiere was it come to 
pass on my jumey when I came to Prussia Jermany Prostken on the Russian gaite 
the Russian RuUers took a hold on me without a couse and they arrested me and 
moreover they rubbed me all my property that I ha,d with me and they humbled me 
very Beastly so that my body could not bare it and also they carried me with the 
arrest from Prostken to stoochin and straight trough till they brought me to the place 
where they wanted and once for all I have no Passport with me now and I can not go 
nowhere for employment I am poor and needy I have no bread to eat and nor a gar- 
ment wherwitoU to cover my body the rullers in the City of Pinsk took away from me 
my American papers and since the Falls Sison till now and I can not get them back 
now therefore my dear master and Minister I humbly pray you to be kind unto your 
servant and to look quick for my cause atend for my trial and pity me send me Please 
som assistence for my need so much as you are able and willing. The Lord bless 
you and strengthen you and give you life everlasting I am your Truly American 
Friend John Ginzberg. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, 1087-1088.) 



TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 197 

llnclosure 7 — TraDslation.] 
Mr. Chichkine to Mr. Breckinridge. 

St. Petersburg, February 22-March 6, 1895. 

Mr. Minister: In answer to my note of January 25-Februarj^ 6, you have expressed 
the desu-e to receive information of a more explicit nature in regard to the course of 
the case of John Ginzberg. 

You will not ignore that the purpose of the note mentioned by you was to reassure 
you as to the humane treatment on the part of the Imperial authorities; as regards the 
case of Ginzberg, it is at the present time, as I had the honor to inform you, in the 
hands of the justice and is following its coiu-se, and I therefore can not give the desired 
explicit details before a corresponding communication reaches me from our judicial 
authorities. 

Receive, etc., Chichkine. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1087.) 



[inclosure 9— Translation.] 

Mr. Chichkine to Mr. Breckinridge. 

St. Petersburg, April 6-18, 1895. 
Mr. Minister: Referring to my note of February 22-March 8, No. 1603, I have the 
honor to inform you, according to a recent communication of the ministry of the 
interior, that the case of ]Mr. Schimon Ginzberg was turned over to the judge of instruc- 
tion of the district of Stchoutchin , and that the indi^ddual in question was set free 
on the 4-16 of January, under surety of one named Leiser Tchetchik. 

Receive, etc., " Chichkine. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1088.) 



[Inclosure 10.] 
Mr. LevAs to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Banking House of Robert P. Lewis, 

Glasgow, Mont., April 23, 1895. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of a letter from John Ginzberg, now at Minsk Pinsk, 
Loheshin, Russia, in which he states that on entei-ing Russia at or near Prostken he 
was arrested and caiTied from place to i^lace, finally being lodged in jail at Pinsk, 
where the authorities took away his certificate of natm'alization and passport. Mr. 
Ginzberg left this country last October on a visit to his parents at Minsk, he having 
left Russia when a boy of 14 and has been away from Russia about 15 years. Took 
out his naturalization papers at Wilmington, Del., and procured a passport when he 
left this country last October. The cause given for his arrest was that he became 
an American citizen. Please take this matter up to the end that Mr. Ginzberg may 
be released fi-om the surveillance of the Russian authorities and may return to the 
United States. 

Thanking you in advance for your action in the matter, 

Very respectfully, ' R. M. Lewis. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1088.) 



[Inclosure 11.] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Prince Lohanoiv. 

Legation of the United States, 
St. Petersburg, April 28-May 10, 1895. 
Your Excellency: RefeiTing to my notes of December 2-14, 1894, January 13-25, 
and February 16-28, 1895, relating to the affair of Schimon (or John) Ginzberg, a native 
of Russia and a naturalized citizen of the United States, I now have to state that I 



198 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

am in receipt of information that Ginzberg went or was taken to the United States 
when only 14 years of age and that he desires to retm-n to that country. 

I am informed by a note from Mr. Chichkine, dated April 6-18, 1895, that on the 
4-16 of January Ginzberg had been turned over to the judge of instruction of the 
district of Stchouchin, and that he was released upon that date under surety of one 
Leiser Tchetchik. 

Without entering upon the differences in the laws of the United States and the 
Empire of Russia, and of their respective legal obligations toward citizens and sub- 
jects, I yet wish to acknowledge a frequent kindly disposition to adjust matters aris- 
ing under those differences as far as can be done; and I submit that this case presents 
a very appealing feature in the extreme youth of Ginzberg at the time he left Russia, 
Now, for 15 years his ties have grown up in the United States, and if he wishes to 
return I hope the imperial permission will be granted him to do so. To charge an 
offense as a subject at so tender an age is to anticipate by a great leap the obligations 
of manhood; and the fact that he seems to have been in America, beginning in ex- 
treme youth, at the time any public obligations would have matured here presents 
in this particular the antagonistic principles and laws of the two countries at their 
pronounced points of difference, and in a way that, for my part, I always wish to avoid, 
especially when dealing with a Government that has been historically friendly to 
America. I trust that Ginzberg can be given permission to return and to assume 
without danger of further question at any time his obligations as a citizen of the 
United States. 

I avail, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1088-1089.) 



[Inclosure 12.] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Levns. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 10, 1895. 
Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of April 23, in relation to John Ginzberg, who has 
been under arrest in Minsk, and stating that he desires to return to the United States. 
You also state the interesting fact, in a case of this character, that he was a minor when 
he moved or was taken to the United States, being at that time some 15 years ago, 
only 14 year of age. I have just written to Ginzberg and will further follow up his 
case. I din't think I ever knew of a man who more persistently disregarded the 
advice he sought or seemingly tried harder to get into prison than Ginzberg. After 
a deal of work he is at last out of prison, and has been since the 16th of January, and I 
hope will get the consent of the Russian Government, which denies the right of 
expatriation, to return to America. 

I am, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1089.) 



[Inclosure 13.] 

3Ir. Breckinridge to Mr. Ginzberg. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, May 10, 1895. 
Sir: The consul general hands me your postal card of April 19-May 1, saying that 
yx>u could not hear from me. I received your letters and have been earnestly trying 
to get you out of prison, from which place I was happy to leam some time ago that you 
had been released. 

I am just in receipt of a letter from Mr. R. M. Lewis, a banker at Glasgow, Mont., 
saying that you want to return to the United States, though you have not expressed 
this wish to me. If this is your wish, so inform me, and I will do what I can to get 
the Imperial Government to release you of every claim and let you go back to the 
United States. 
What was your age when you went to the L'nited States? 
I am, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge, 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1089-1090.) 



TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 199 

Mr. Peirce to Mr. Gresham. 

Legation of the United States. 

St. Petersburg, May 27, 1895. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Uhl's No. 54, of May 15, 
1895, relating to the case of John Ginzberg, and inclosing copy of a letter from his 
excellency the governor of Montana, covering an affidavit of John M. Lewis, of Glas- 
gow, in that State, and also inclosing copy of Ginzberg's passport application, dated 
October 4, 1894. 

The department was informed in Mr. Breckinridge's No. 74, of May 18, 1895, of the 
action of the legation in this case, which has been energetically pushed, as is shown 
by the correspondence. 

It is an unfortunate circumstance in Ginzberg's case that he entered Russia without 
having his passport visaed as required by law; a law, by the way, of which it appears 
he was informed by our consul at Hamburg. 

It now seems to me that an appeal made personally to the minister of the interior 
may have some effect. Should the case continue to remain in the hands of the "judi- 
cial authorities " there is no limit practically to the technicalities which may be used 
to obstruct a speedy conclusion of the affair. I will therefore make it my business to 
call upon the minister of the interior at an early date and urge upon him the release 
of this man, in the hope that this further detention may seem to him undesirable. 
I have, etc., 

Herbert H. D. Peirce. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1090.) 



Mr. Peirce to Mr. Uhl. 

Legation of the United States, 

1^- ■■' St. Petersburg, May 30, 1895. 

Sir: Referring to my No. 81, of May 27, I have the honor to inform you that on 
calling yesterday upon Mr. Chichkine, at the foreign office, I was informed that 
Baron Osten-Sacken now has charge of the case of John Ginzberg so far as that ministry 
is concerned, the case being at present in the hands of the ministry of justice. 

It seemed to me prudent to inform Baron Osten-Sacken of the letter of the governor 
of the State of Montana and to urge upon him certain views of this case before bringing 
the question up with the minister of the interior. 

I accordingly spent some hours with Baron Osten-Sacken both yesterday and to-day, 
going over with him the history of the case, and I am able to report as a result that on 
leaving him this afternoon I had his assurance that he would address a note to the 
minister of justice recommending Ginzberg's release. 

Whether this will have the desired result I am unable to say, but it can not, I think, 
but have a favorable effect. I shall continue to follow this matter up with Baron 
Osten-Sacken and Mr. Dournovo, the minister of the interior, whom I hope to see 
to-morrow, that being his first reception day since the receipt of your No. 54. I shall 
also, if the course of events seems to warrant it, call upon the minister of justice in 
regard to this case. 

I have, etc., Herbert H. D. Peirce. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1090-1091.) 



Mr. Olney to Mr. Peirce. 

Department of State, 
Washington, June 15, 1895. 

Sir: Mr. Breckinridge's No. 74, of the 18th, and your Nos. 81 and 85, of the 27th 
and 30th ultimo, in relation to the arrest of John Ginzberg, have been received. The 
minister's action in anticipating the department's instructions, Nos. 50, of May 3, and 
54, of May 15, on the same subject, upon information received by him from the United 
States consul at Hamburg, is appreciated, and your attention to the case is approved. 

In reading the voluminous correspondence now sent hither an important conflict 
is observed between the statements on behalf of the airested man and those communi- 
cated to Mr. Breckinridge by Mr. Chichkine, as having been furnished by the governor 
of Minsk. It is expressly said by the latter that Schimon (otherwise called John) 



200 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Ginzberg deserted the military serAdce in 1886 by taking refuge in America, and after 
having been fully identified he was, upon the governor's order, turned over to the 
judicial authorities in virtue of the laws applicable to the "crime of desertion." On 
the other hand, in the application of John Ginzberg, upon which passport No. 17003 
was issued him_ October 8, 1894, he swears he was born at Minsk on or about September 
4, 1865, and emigrated, sailing on the Hammonia from Hamburg on or about the 7th 
day of July, 1880, subsequently naturalized in Wilmington, Del., August 10, 1886. 

It is obvious that the military offense of desertion could not have been committed 
by this boy of less than 15 years of age when he quitted Russia in the early part of 
1880; and the fact that the governor of Minsk specifies as the date of the alleged 
desertion the year in which Ginzberg was duly made a citizen of the United States, 
in pursuance of our laws, raises a presumption that the so-called act of desertion for 
which Ginzberg is to he tried may in fact be his acquisition of American citizenship. 
If this be so, the Government of the United States can never acquiesce in any claim 
of any other Government to penalize the act of naturalization when lawfully granted 
within our jurisdiction to one of its former subjects or citizens. 

Actual desertion from service is universally regarded as a continuing offense, con- 
doned neither by lapse of time nor change of citizenship, and were this proved in the 
present case you would have practicallj^ no ground for remonstrance against the pun- 
ishment of Ginzberg as such a deserter; but, as already remarked, a child of 14 can 
not be a deserter in this military sense ; nor is it reasonable to suppose that any man 
with the well-known penalites of actual desertion from active service hanging over 
him would have so persistently endeavored to reenter Russian jurisdiction as Mr. Ginz- 
berg has done . 

It is, however, probable, in view of Baron Osten-Sacken's conclusion that the facts 
of the case warranted his addressing a note to the minister of justice recommending 
Ginzberg's release, that actual desertion from the ranks does not figure in the case. 

Should the action of the foreign ofiice not bring about a favorable result it may be 
necessary to press the case on the ground that the punishment of a naturalized person 
for the mere act of becoming a citizen of the United States by due operation of our 
laws is "nadmissible and unfriendly. 

Before presenting the case positively on this ground it may be well, however, to put 
John Ginzberg's right to protection as an American citizen beyond all doubt. The 
circumstances of his application for a passport disclose an irregularity which may or 
may not be vital. 

A copy of John Ginzberg's application for a passport, made October 4, 1894, before 
one Moritz Silberstein, a notary public of New York City, was sent to the legation with 
Mr. Uhl's No. 54, of May 15. It will be observed that Ginzberg therein swears that 
he was born at Minsk, Russia, on or about the 4th day of September, 1865, and was 
naturalized before the circuit court of the United States at Wilmington, Del., on the 
10th day of August, 1886 — that is, 25 days before attaining legal age. As the date of 
birth is only approximately given, this apparent defect may be removed upon the 
production of a copy of his certificate of birth. 

Mr. Lewis, who wrote to the department on the subject, will be informed of what 
you have done and of your interest in the matter, in addition to the informationyou 
have already directly given to him in your letter of May 10. 

I am, etc., " Richard Olney. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1091-1092.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 22, 1895. 

Sir: Your No. 79, of June 15, inclosing traced signature of John Ginzberg, copy of 
his application for a passport, and review of his case was duly received. I am happy 
to note your approval of the steps previously taken by the legation, and the contents 
of your present dispatch have my careful attention. 

I have now to report the present status of the case and to inform you of the proceed- 
ings since the receipt of the dispatch above referred to. 

The status is practically unchanged except so far as it may be advanced to a decision 
by these proceedings. 

No result following the favorable note of the foreign office to the minister of justice, 
reported in the legation's No. 85, of May 30, and having your dispatch as an occasion 
for additional urgency, I again addressed Prince Lobanow, July 19, copy of which 
note is inclosed. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 201 

In this note I carefully restated the whole case, following the lines already pressed 
and those laid down in your dispatch . 

This was followed up by a personal visit to Baron Osten-Sacken, when the case 
was fully discussed and a favorable view of the matter was taken by him. 

He said the power to disnaiss the jyroceedings against Ginzberg lay with the minister 
of the interior. I pressed the. case from the standpoint already taken by the Russian 
Government, that of desertion from the military service, urged the interest taken in it 
by the department, and requested him to use his good offices with the minister of the 
interior to dismiss the whole matter and let Ginzberg return to the United States. 
Agreeing with me substantially about the merits of the case, the baron also agreed that 
it was one his Government could not well desire to continue, and that the anxiety, ex- 
pense, and suffering already incurred made up of themselves no small measure of pun- 
ishment. He promised to at once comply with my request. 

After this the minister of the interior was seen. He spoke not unfavorably about the 
case; and, despite all that had been written through the regular chanels, he requested 
that I submit in writing a further statement of the case to him. This I did August 17, 
copy of which is inclosed. I am not without hope of favorable action within a short 
time by the minister of the interior. 

Thus the case stands: The application to the minister of justice to expedite it, with 
the possibility of a light penalty or of acquittal is still pending. The application to 
the minister of the interior to dismiss the case is in the same position, and the matter 
will continue to be followed up in every way that may seem possible. * * * 

The leniency in the present case has been, measured by the usual standard, very 
great. He was soon let out of prison upon mere personal recognizance; and I am in- 
formed that if his case takes its "usual" course it would be six months yet before he 
would come to trial. 

Your remarks about pressing the case upon the ground that it is one of punishment 
for the mere act of becoming a citizen of the United States by due operation of our laws 
if it be "necessary," the position of the United States in that contingency, and the 
caution as to probable error in Ginzberg's approximate statement of the date of his 
berth, all have my careful attention. As I am still hoping for a solution upon the 
grounds already laid down , I do not yet press that point, nor do I yet move in the matter 
of the date of birth, which may technically, at least, affect Ginzberg's status, since 
the question of his full compliance with our laws is not raised by the Russian Govern- 
ment. 

You state such action on the part of the Russian Government to be "inadmissible 
and unfriendly." This being true in a general sense, it is particularly true of one who 
came to us when a boy, grew up with us, and has really never known any other coun- 
try. So, while not urging this in the general sense, I have used it in this special case, 
but without, of course, admitting in any degree that it would be proper or just in any 
case. Indeed, I have taken occasion in conversation to express fully to Prince Loba- 
now and Baron Osten-Sacken the position of the United States upon this subject. 

This case will continue to be followed up and you will be promptly informed of any 
changes or results. 

Respectfully submitting the present statement, I have, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge, 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1092-1093.) 



[Inclosure No. 1.] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Prince Lohanovj. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 7-19, 1895. 

Your Excellency: My Government has communicated with me at length and 
with much interest in regard to John (Simon) Ginzberg, a naturalized American 
citizen, detained in the government of Minsk upon the charge of desertion from the 
military service. 

The last note from this legation upon this subject was on April 28-May 10. 

It seems that Ginzberg was bom in 1865 and that he went to America in 1880, when he 
was between 14 and 15 years of age. My Government is very far from desiring to condone 
in any way the crime of actual desertion from military service. It is a continuing 
crime, and the acquisition of citizenship in the United States by a deserter would not 
give him any right to invoke our intervention were he subsequently duly apprehended 
by the country to which he once owed such allegiance. 



202 TERMIITATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

While these points have been alluded to in the former notes of this legation, yet, in 
view of the stress laid upon them by my Government, I feel constrained to bring them 
more particularly to your excellency's attention. 

It seems quite incomprehensible that this crime can seriously lay against a child, 
as Ginzberg was at the time he left or was carried from the Empire. He thus appears 
to have grown upon our soil to a fair and honorable acquisition of citizenship, and as the 
possession of such a title to have full right to our utmost solicitude and interest. 

Surely no deserter would ever have gone back to be apprehended as this man did. He 
was warned by our consul at Hamburg not to visit Russia unless his passport was 
viseed. The consul knew that the Russian consul had refused to vis6 Ginzberg' s pass- 
port, and so wrote me. But he said nothing of any liability to arrest for any crime, 
and I do not suppose Ginzberg dreamed that any such charge could possibly be laid 
to him. He was turned back from the frontier; but with a sense of innocence and 
safety he returned to his birthplace without permission, and was there arrested as 
stated. 

It is not charged that Ginzberg entered the Empire with any evil purpose, and hence 
it'may be said that no remarks upon this point are necessary. But I can not refrain, 
as indicative of the complete harmoniousness and innocence of character of this man, 
from inclosing a copy of a letter kindly sent to him from me by the foreign office. 
This copy shows that the man is still but a child in mind and disposition, and can not 
but incline the imperial authorities to believe that this man never committed a crime. 
He certainly never will commit one. 

In conclusion, I submit especially to your excellency those observations particu- 
larly arising from the present communication from my Government; and I ask that 
Ginzberg may be permitted to return to America, as formerly requested, without fur- 
ther let or hindrance. 

I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1093-1094.) 



[Inclosure No. 2.] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Dournovo. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 5-17, 1895. 

Your Excellency: I hasten to comply with the i.vish you so kindly expressed to 
the secretary of this legation that I should submit a statement of the case of John 
Ginzberg, a naturalized American citizen, in detention at Loguishin, Minsk Pinsk. 
I wish to express my appreciation at the same time of your goodness in accepting 
this statement in English instead of in one of the several other languages at your 
command, for I regret to say that English is the only language in which I can express 
myself. 

Ginzberg was born at Minsk, Russia, in 1865. He went to the United States when 
he was 14 years of age, and upon becoming of age he was made a citizen according to 
the laws of the United States. 

In the month of December of last year he retm-ned to Russia to visit his family. 
He is the bearer of passport No. 17003, issued by the Department of State of the 
United States on the 8th of October, 1894. 

Upon reaching Prostken he was arrested upon the charge, as I am informed by the 
imperial foreign office, of desertion, and I have been further informed that he is now 
released from confinement, but is required to confine himself to the locality of Logui- 
shin, Minsk, under bond or assurance of Leiser Tchetchik. 

This case has been the subject of my earnest representations from my Government, 
and of repeated communications and interviews between this legation and the foreign 
office. 

As to the merits of the case my Government wishes it first to be clearly understood 
that if Ginzberg had actually deserted from the military service of the Empire, or 
had fled from service which had matured, it would not interpose in his behalf. It 
has no desire to condone the crime of desertion. 

But the accused left the Empire when he was a boy, an irresponsible child, and 
surely he was not liable at that tender age to any military service. 

Having come to the United States at that age, and having grown up there, my 
Government thinks it unfriendly to hold him liable as one who has consciovisly and 
purposely sought to avoid a matured duty. Hence it earnestly desires that in this 
state of the case he be discharged and permitted to return to the United States, 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 203 

Attention is also called to the obvious fact that Ginzberg is a man of simple, I may 
well say, of weak mind, and one hardly to be held responsible for at least such acts 
as are not hurtful to others. His letters to me strongly indicate this. Your excellency 
doubtless has a copy of one these letters with the papers from the foreign office, and 
two or three more of such childish communications have been received by me. The 
character of sympathy shown for him by persons in the United States further indi- 
cates this. The very fact of his coming here in the way he did, clearly shows that 
since he is not a vicious man, he must be a man of very weak mind. The United 
States consul at Hamburg wrote that Ginzberg applied to the Russian consul there 
to have his passport viseed, which was refused. He then applied to the United 
States consul for advice, and was strongly advised not to attempt to enter Russia 
under the circumstances. Yet he came to the frontier and was turned back by the 
Russian officials. Even after this experience he eluded the guards and entered the 
Empii-e, all of which, in so harmless a man, with no very strong inducement of any 
kind, shows a lack of intelligence that must attract attention. 

I have fully submitted the case to your excellency, and I hope that the earnest 
wish of my Government can be complied with, and that in accordance therewith 
Ginzberg can be set at liberty and permitted to return to his home in the United 
States. He has now suffered from great anxiety and long detention, and I ask the 
kindness of information of yom* excellency's decision in the matter. 
I avail, myseh, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1094.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 29, 1895. 
Sir: Referring to my No. 130, in regard to John Ginzberg, I now have to say that 
I am informed by a note from Mr. Chichkine that the foreign office has been informed 
by the ministry of justice that the necessary steps have been taken to hasten the 
progress of this case. 

The appeal to the minister of the interior to dismiss the case is still pending. 
I have, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge » 
(Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 1096.) 



banishment of JOHN GINZBERG, 

Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Olney. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 7, 1896. 

Sir: Preferring to my No. 135, of August 29, 1895, I now have the honor and pleasure 
of inclosing copy of a letter from Mr. Ginzberg, dated Minsk, September 19-October 1, 
stating that his trial was concluded September 16-28, with the result that he can 
return to the United States. 

Mr. Ginzberg further alludes to the method of his return, desires the return of hia 
American papers, and he prefers a claim against the Russian Government of $3 a day 
for 730 days of arrest and detention. 

I also inclose copy of my letter of this date to Mr. Ginzberg and of my note of same 
date to the foreign office. 

I express gratification at the reported conclusion of the trial, ask for fuller and more 
explicit information of the result, request the return to Ginzberg of his papers and 
full liberty as respects his return to the United States, but refrain from taking any 
action in regard to his claim, informing him that it is referred to the department. 

Further information will be reported to you as it may be obtained. 

Submitting the foregoing, I have the honor, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge, 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 509.) 



204 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Ginzberg to Mr. Breckinridge. 

My petition and request. 

Merciful Gentlemen: I let you know that my trial is over by the judges of Minsk, 
in the city of Pinsk, on the 6th of September, 1896. It was finished for to send me 
to the United States of America. So I am afraid that Russia will not send me as a 
passenger. But they might send me through jails or arrest houses, as they always do 
m their land. Therefore, my beloved and good gentlemen, I pray you very much to 
be so kind unto your servant and let me not suffer in this journey. Ask, please, the 
Russian rulers to give me only in my hands the American papers, with a ticket for 
the railroad and steamship, and so it will take me only about two week.s' time to 
come to the United States of America. But if they will carry me so it will take seven 
weeks' time, and I will be mixed up with all kinds of bad men, so that I can not 
stand that. And I pray you very much charge Russia for two years' time that they 
kept me arrested, for, indeed, they arrested me unlawfully on the Prussian ground, 
till it now makes altogether 730 days. I charge them $3 a day. 
Yours, truly, 

John Ginzberg. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 510.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Ginzberg. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 7, 1896. 
Sir: I have your letter of September 17-October 1, and it affords me much pleas- 
ure to learn that the decision in your case permits of your return to the United States. 
In regard to the method of yoiir going, of which you speak, I make inquiry, and 
will inform you of the result as soon as practicable. The request is also made that 
your American papers be returned to you. 

Concerning your claim against the Russian Government for compensation, I take 
no action at this time beyond including a statement of your claim in my report to 
the Department of State. 

I am, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 510.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Count Lamsdorff. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, October 7, 1896. 
Your Excellency: Referring to the case of John Ginzberg, of which my note of 
August 21-September 2, 1895, to the imperial ministry of foreign affairs was my last 
communication, I now have the honor to say that a letter from Mr. Ginzberg, dated 
r^Minsk (city of Pinsk), September 19-October 1, informs me that his trial was con- 
cluded September 6-18, and that the result permits of his return to the United States. 
Beyond the foregoing in a general way Mr. Ginzberg does not give me any informa- 
tion as to the nature of the verdict. 

I beg to say that this information will be gratifying to my Government. 
I should be pleased to receive a more full and explicit statement of the finding of the 
court and of the further course intended to be pursued with respect to Mr. Ginzberg, 
and I have the honor to request your excellency's good offices to this end. 

Mr. Ginzberg expresses a desire for the return of his American papers, and for unre- 
stricted liberty as regards his return to the United States. Without entering upon any 
of the controverted points between the Imperial Government and the Government of 
the United States, in cases similar to this, I will only say that this course would be 
gratifying to my Government. 

I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 510-511.) 



TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 205 

Mr. Olney to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department of State, 
Washington, October 27, 1896. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 405, of the 7th instant, 
announcing the decision of the court at Pinsk in the case of John Ginzberg. 

Expressing the department's gratification at the apparently favorable result, I have 
to say that it will await further and more definite information in relation to his case 
before expressing an opinion upon the subject of his claim for $3 per day for 730 days 
during his arrest and detention. 

I am, etc., Richard Olney. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 511.) 



Mr. Pierce to Mr. Olney. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 5, 1896. 

Sir: I have the honor to inclose copies of recent correspondence in regard to John 
Ginzberg, from which it will be seen that he has been convicted of the charge brought 
against him and condemned to deprivation of civil rights and banishment from the 
Empire. 

It appears that what Mr. Ginzberg himself wants is to leave the Empire and return 
to the United States, but it now becomes a question of how he is to be transported 
there. The penalty for remaining iu Russia beyond a limited time after sentence is 
like that of return after banishment — dejwrtation to Siberia. The officials at the 
foreign office have given me a verbal assurance that the case shall remain in statu quo 
for six weeks, pending advices from the department. If the means can be furnished, 
he can travel to the frontier in such way as he sees fit, except that his route must be 
determined beforehand, with the consent of the Imperial Government. If his friends 
can not furnish the money for a more comfortable means of making the journey, he 
can be marched to the frontier by "etape" in the usual manner for criminals. But 
it will be necessary to furnish.means to pass him through Germany, so that he will not 
be prevented by the regulations of the German Government regarding paupers from 
crossing the frontier. 

All Ginzberg's letters to this legation indicate that he is destitute of the means to 
pay for his journey to the United States. 

Awaiting your instructions, I am, etc., Herbert H. D. Pierce, 

Charge d' Affaires ad interim. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) 



Mr. Ginzberg to Mr. Breckinridge. 
[Inclosure.] 

Province op Minsk, Pinsk District, 

October 22, 1896. 

Good Master and Gentlemen: Upon my soul I can not understand the Russian 
ways how they do justice. I can tell that the arrest is lying on me more than two 
years' time. 

And behold my case was finished on the 6th of September, 1896, and still they are 
keeping me now in such a little town — Loguishin, Russia — where no employment can 
be for such a man like I am. Now, I pray you, beloved master, show kindness to me 
and pity me, for I am a true man for the United States of America, and ask, please, 
the judges of Russia, let them send me my American papers quick as it is possible, 
because I have now a place for employment in the United States in the city of New 
York. There is a girl waiting for me; she would like to get married for me; and I 
have promised her that I will be her bridegroom. Therefore, beloved master, I pray 
you finish my case and send me out from Russia the same way like the Minsk judges 
are willing to do it. 

Yours, etc., John Ginzberg. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) 



206 TERMIiSTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. ChichHne to Mr. Pierce. 

Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Department of Internal Relations, 

St. Petersburg, November 20, 1896. 
Mr. Charge d'affaires: Referring to the note of the legation of the United States 
under date of September 25 last, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy 
of the sentence of the Minsk district court relating to the case of Simon (alias John) 
Ginzberg. 

As it appears from the said document, Ginzberg is, in virtue of article 325 of the penal 
code, condemned to the deprivation of all civilrights and to perpetual banishment 
from the Empire. 

In communicating to you the foregoing, please, Mr. Charg6 d 'Affaires, accept, etc., 

Chichkinb, 
(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) 



[Subinclosure— Translation.] 

September 9, 1896, in the presence of the assistant attorney N. K. Gavriloff, and the 
assistant secretary, A. P. Kozitch, the following sentence was returned, based upon 
Nos. 829-834 and 842 of the statutes of the criminal court, by the member of the court, 
A. A. Prostomolotoff. 

sentence. 

6th day of September, 1896. 

By oukase of His Imperial Majesty, in the criminal department of the district court 
of Minsk, represented as follows: President J. V. Mouchketoff ; members of the court 
X. F. Solovievitch, A. A. Prostomolotoff, with the assistance of the secretary, E. F. 
Loponchansky, and in the presence of Mr. Assistant Attorney N. K. Gavriloff, with 
the participation of a sworn jury, the case of Simon Jankel Ginzberg, aged 29 years, 
was heard, recognized guilty (but deserving leniency) in that, being a Russian subject 
he left his native land and went to America, and on the 10th of August, 1886, became, 
without permission of the Government, a naturalized citizen of the United States of 
America, and that in the autumn of 1896 he voluntarily returned to Russia. Referring 
to the decree of laws governing the above verdict the sworn jury of the district court 
found that the action of which Ginzberg is found guilty (according to collection of 
laws of the governing senate of 1878 under No. 21), by his own admission, the crime 
defined in No. 325, part 1st of the penal code, and entailing with it for the person found 
guilty the deprivation of all civil rights and perpetual banishment irom the Empire, 
which sentence is pronounced upon Ginzberg. The cost of the present case, according 
to Nos. 976-979 of the statutes of criminal courts, to be paid by Ginzberg, and in case 
of his inability to pay, the said costs to be born by the Crown. Documents referring 
to the identification of Ginzberg now in the possession of the court to be returned to 
him. 

In conformity with the above and with No. 776 of the statutes governing criminal 
courts, the district court declares, according to the decision of the sworn jury, that 
the commoner of Little Laguishin, district of Pinsk, Simon Jankel Ginzberg, aged 
29 years, based upon No. 325, part first of the penal code, is deprived of all civil rights 
and is sentenced to perpetual banishment from the limits of the Russian Empire; the 
costs of the trial to be paid by Ginzberg, and in case of his inability to pay, said costs 
to be defrayed by the Crown, the documents relative to the identification of Ginzberg, 
now held by the court, issued to Ginzberg by the Government of the United States, 
to be retiurned to Ginzberg as belonging to him. 

The original bears the proper signatures. 

(Signature illegible.) 
Acting Secretary of tJie District Court of Minsk. 

Countersigned: A. Lavrovitch, Assistant Secretary. 

(Foreign Relations, 1896, p. 512.) 



tebmijStatiox of the treaty of 1832, 207 

Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department op State, 

Washington, November 9, 1897. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 635 of the 23d ultimo, reporting 
that the application of Mr. Marks Nathan, an American Hebrew, to visit Russia, had 
been granted by the minister of the interior. 

In this connection I inclose copy of a letter from Mr. Charles L. Aarons, of Mil- 
waukee, transmitting copy of a reply made by the Russian Legation at this Capital to a 
request for permission made, in behalf of a naturalized American citizen of Russian 
birth, to visit Russia. 

This reply was couched in terms new to this department. 

It may be prudent to inquire if the condition of five years' service in the Russian 
Army is in lieu of the criminal liability incurred under article 325 of the penal code 
for the offense of becoming a naturalized citizen in a foreign country and whether the 
same condition of return extends to Jews. If penal exile to Siberia or arrest and 
expulsion as a Jew should lie, the reply of the Russian Legation would seem to be 
unnecessarily silent as to these possible aspects of the case. 

Respectfully, yours, John Sherman. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 437.) 



[Inclosure.] 
Mr. Aarons to Mr. Sherman. 

Milwaukee^ Wis., November 4, 1897. 

Esteemed Sir: Mr. Harry Marks, of this city, is a citizen of the United States and 
of this State of long standing. 

He is desirous of making a visit to Russo-Poland, his birthplace, to visit his aged 
parents, whom he left about 20 years ago, and makes this request for a passport or 
such other authority as will show his citizenship and right to travel. He is in posses- 
sion of his first and second citizenship papers, and will forward them to you if neces- 
sary. 

He begs furthermore to call your attention to the following: On his behalf I have 
recently written to the Russian ambassador at Washington, stating that Mr. Marks 
left his native land at the age of 17 and for no other purpose than to earn a living for 
himself and for his parents. He has been doing this in this country ever since; con- 
sequently he was not in Russia at the time when his enlistment would have taken 
place at the age of 21 years. 

I wrote asking the Russian ambassador that a special permit from him be given to 
Mr. Marks assuring him that he would not be disturbed and allowing him to visit his 
birthplace. I herewith inclose copy of answer received by me. 

I, as well as many others here who are awaiting the outcome of this matter with 
deep interest, would greatly appreciate any consideration that you can bestow upon 
this matter. 

Awaiting your reply in the inclosed stamped envelope, 
I am, etc., 

Charles L. Aarons. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 437.) 



[Subinclosure.] 

Mr. Zelenoi to Mr. Aarons. 

Russian Imperial Legation, 

Washington, October 20, 1897. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter I have the honor to inform you that everyone 
who left Russia before his enlistment in the army, on his return to that country must 
serve his term, which is five years. Before speaking of a permit, I found it necessary 
to announce to you this matter. If Mr. Harry Marks is willing to serve his country 
five years as a soldier, we can consider his case. 

Believe me, sir, yours, truly, A. Zelenoi, 

Secretary of the Russian Legation. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 438.) 
19831—11 ^14 



208 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Mr. Hitchcoch to Mr. Shervian. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 22, 1S97. 
Sir: Referring to your No. 485 of November 9, I have the honor to inclose herewith 
copy of a note of this legation of November 26-December 8, and of the reply of the 
Imperial Government thereto, dated December 20. 

It appears from Count Lamsdorff's note that the five years' service referred to by the 
imperial legation at Washington is not in lieu of the criminal liability incurred under 
article 325 of the penal code for the offense of becoming a naturalized citizen of a foreign 
country without permission of the Imperial Government, and that condition, as regards 
military service, applies to all subjects of the Empire irrespective of religion, and 
hence extends to Jews . 

I have, etc., Ethan A. Hitchcock. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 438.) 



[Inclosure. ] 

Mr. Breckinridge to Count Mouravieff. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 8, 1897. 
Your Excellency: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter from the imperial 
legation at Washington of October 20-November 1, sent me by my Government with 
instructions to inquire if the conditions of five years' service in the Russian Army, 
therein referred to, is in lieu of the criminal liability under article 325 of the Penal 
Code for the offense of becoming a naturalized citizen of a foreign country without 
imperial consent, and whether the same condition of return extends to Jews. 

It may be observed that the communication from the imperial legation was sent 
to the Department of State by the applicant in the usual course of correspondence 
about his desires to procure a permit to return to Russia on a visit, but that its failure 
to mention the liabilities formerly imposed suggested the inquiry as to the present 
status of the law on the subject. 

I avail myself, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 438.) 



[Inclosure. — Translation.] 

Count Lamsdorffto Mr. Hitchcoch. 

Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Department of Internal Relations, 

St. Petersburg, December 8-20, 1897. 
Mr. Minister: Referring to the note of November 21-December 8, I hasten to 
communicate to you that the five years of military service mentioned in the letter of 
Mr. Zelenoi are not in lieu of the penalties established by article 325 of the Penal Code 
for unlawful abandonment of Russian subjection. All the subjects of the Empire 
without distinction of religion are held to serve during that time under the flag. 
Accept, etc., 

Count Lamsdorpp. 
(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 439.) 



exclusion of jews. 

Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department of State, 

Washington, June 18, 1897. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 561, of the 24th ultimo, in 
further relation to the interesting case of Frederick G. Grenz, a naturalized American 
citizen, who has been acquitted of the charge of having expatriated himself without 
imperial permission. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 209 

This gratifying result, and the remarks of Baron Osten Sacken. appear to justify 
your inference that there is a growing disposition among the more advanced statesmen 
of Russia to regard the old policy and treatment in this class of cases as being "too 
drastic to meet the requirements of to-day." It would afford this Government much 
satisfaction to witness a change in the direction of recognizing the larger policy of most 
of the modern States by which the right of the citizen or subject to peaceably change his 
allegiance by orderly process of law is admitted by statute or confirmed by the con- 
clusion of naturalization treaties. The spirit of accommodation which, after many 
failures through a long series of years, at length enabled the Russian Government to 
negotiate with the United States a convention of extradition on the most advanced 
modern lines may, it is hoped, yet permit of an agreement upon the terms of a treaty 
whereby the irritating questions affecting our naturalized citizens of Russian origin 
may be removed from the field of discussion and given that practical settlement which 
may not hopefully be devised so long as the two Governments approach the matter 
from diametrically opposed standpoints. 

The department is disposed to commend the course pursued by you and by Consul 
Heenan in so dealing with the case of Mr. Grenz as to avoid academic discussion of the 
abstract merits of the controversy. This Government has no desu-e to force that of 
Russia to any abrupt acquiescence in the doctrines we profess as to the liberty of the 
subject, which tenets we may frankly admit are derived from sources very distant 
fi'om the historical traditions of imperialism. It is willing to recognize the good dis- 
position which Russia has shown in her own way and through her own municipal and 
judicial workings toward personally deserving American citizens who have incurred 
statutory or technical disabilities in Russia. It would deplore on the part of Russia, 
as much as it would avoid for its own part, any attempt to narrow the controversy to 
rigid limits and to bring about a deadlock fi'om which neither party may recede with 
self-respect. It is prepared now, for many years past, to give to its representatives in 
Russia the widest latitude to deal with this class of questions according to the more 
amiable and elastic formulas of unwritten diplomacy, in the confidence that by pur- 
suing this mutually deferential course a more formal agreement upon the essential 
principles involved may eventually be found within reach. 

It would be gratifying to discern a similar disposition on the part of the Russian 
agents in this country. The Russian Government has lately been made acquainted 
with the indisposition of the United States to acquiesce in any inquisitorial office on 
the part of the Russian agents toward American citizens within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, whereby a religious test and consequent disability as respects civil 
rights in Russia may be imposed. The response has been elicited that the test com- 
plained of is not essentially_ religious, but rather racial and political; and in proof of 
this the laws of Russia providing for the favorable treatment of foreign Jews of certain 
categories seeking to enter Russia have been officially communicated. 

By the judicial order of March 14, 1891, the power of legations and consulates to vis^ 
passports for Russia extends — without previous authorization of the ministry of the 
interior — to Jewish bankers, chiefs of important commercial houses, and the brokers, 
representatives, clerks, and agents of such houses. Nevertheless, this department 
learns from time to time of the refusal of Russian agents in this country to authenticate 
the passports of Jews unquestionably belonging to the privileged categories, no other 
reason for refusal being assigned them than that the applicants are Jews. The recent 
case of Mr. Adolph Kutner, a wealthy and highly esteemed merchant of California, 
to whom a -sds^ was refused by the charge d'affaires because he "was not a Christian," 
has created a painful impression in the Senate, to members of which high body Mr, 
Kutner is well and favorably known. A resolution introduced by Senator Perkins on 
the 25th ultimo seeks to emphasize the contrast between the professions of the Rus- 
sian Government in regard to the favorable treatment of alien Jews resorting to the 
Empire and the prohibitory practice of the Russian agents in this country. That 
resolution having been referred by the Committee on Foreign Relations to this depart- 
ment for an expression of its views on the subject, a letter, of which copy is inclosed, 
was addressed to the chairman of that committee on the 5th instant, in which the 
position of the Russian Government is truthfully but temperately stated. 

This matter is not now presented by way of argument and protest, but in order that 
you may in such friendly and discreet manner as may be practicable, suggest to the 
minister for foreign affairs that one annoying feature of?the case may be justly elimi- 
nated if the discretion conceded by the Russian law to the imperial legations and con- 
sulates in the matter of authenticating passports of Jews resorting to Russia were made 
effective and practical as to Jews of the privileged classes; or, in the language of Prince 
Lobanow's note of August 12-24, 1895, were in fact operative to admit Jews "of foreign 
allegiance when they seem to present a guaranty that they will not be a charge and a 
parasitic element in the State,|but will be able, on'the contrary, to be useful to the 
internal development of the country." 



210 TEEMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

This suggestion is made in the same amicable spirit which appears to have prompted 
the disposal of the Grenz case, and which characterizes your dispatch on the subject 
and this reply. It can not now be foreseen whether the resolution will be adopted as 
introduced, but should the Senate approve it, the course of the department thereunder 
would be greatly facilitated were it ascertained in advance that the action of the 
Russian agencies in the United States will be in full harmony with the liberal features 
of the Russian law. 

Respectfully, yours, John Sherman. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 443.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Sherman. 

Legation op The United States, 

St. Petersburg, August 11, 1897. 
Sir: Referring to your No. 429 of June 18, with inclosures, concerning the laws and 
regluations of the Russian Government, affecting the vis6s of passports of our citizens 
of Hebrew origin, and to other controverted matters, I have the honor to inclose my 
note of July 20 to Count Mouravieff. 

These matters have been the occasion also of verbal discussion with the foreign office. 
I am not prepared, however, to say more at present than to state in general terms what 
has passed has been well received, the reasonableness of the department's suggestions 
have been unofficially concurred in, and there is reason for hope that progress will be 
made upon lines so reasonable and consistent as those proposed. 
I have, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 
(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 443.) 



[Inclosure.] 
Mr. Breckinridge to Count Mouravieff. 

Legation of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, July 8-20, 1897. 

Your Excellency: Referring to my note of June 27-July 9, in which I had the 
honor to express assurance of the satisfaction of my Government in the generous 
recognition by the Imperial Government of the mitigating conditions in the case of 
Mr. Grenz, a Russian subject who became an American citizen without the consent of 
the Imperial Government, and his acquittal in accordance therewith, I now have the 
honor to say that I am in receipt of a dispatch from my Government fully expressing its 
sentiments in regard to that and other kindred matters. 

My Government charges me to make known to the Imperial Government that while 
recognizing the extreme doctrinal differences which arise from different historical 
traditions, it yet appreciates and reciprocates the sentiments of consideration and 
respect which has been shown. It is pleased to recognize the good disposition shown 
by the administrative and judicial authorities of the Empire, in accordance with its 
established laws and practice toward personally deserving persons of conflicting 
allegiance. 

It is noted that it was in th^s spirit of reasonable accommodation and mutual respect 
which enabled the two Governments, after many failures through a long series of 
years, to at length agree upon a convention of extradition; and it is believed that the 
same spirit, so historically maintained, will continue to ameliorate and remove the 
practical differences which may exist or occasionally arise in the course of the growth 
and increasing intercourse between the two nations. 

Concerning the matter of travel and convenience of citizens about whose nationality 
there is no question, but of the Jewish race, which is subject to special regulations 
within the Empire, the same dispatch desires me to call attention to a practice by the 
imperial officials abroad, which is objectionable and seemingly not at all required 
by the laws of the Empire. 

In this connection I beg to cite the note to this legation of His Excellency Prince 
Lobanoff, dated June 26-July 8, 1895, and a note from the same to the same, dated 
August 12-24, 1895. In these communications, accompanied by an extract of the 
Russian law upon the subject, his excellency stated that in the case of a Jewish banker, 
chief of a commercial house, and qertain other enumerated classes of business men of 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 211 

known importance of the Hebrew race, the imperial legations and consulates were 
authorized to issue and vis6 passports for them to enter Russia according to the same 
regulations which apply to all foreigners who seek to enter the Empire, the only con- 
dition being that the acting official shall inform his excellency, the minister of the 
interior, of any passport granted or visaed for an Israelite of the category named. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of the law, it seems that the imperial 
officials hesitate to act in the manner indicated. A number of cases of this character 
have recently been brought to the attention of my Government, and it is believed that 
by simply amending the practice stated, and in accordance with existing law, a great 
inconvenience to this unobjectionable category of our citizens can be relieved, and 
the irritating incidents arising therefrom can be obviated. 

There is no difficulty in the United States of any citizen of the category named 

(and there can be but little difficulty with such persons applying for a vise abroad) 

in giving satisfactory commercial or official evidence of his identity and character. 

So I submit this feature to your excellency with the hope that it may be acceptable. 

I avail myself, etc., 

Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 444.) 



[Banishment of John Ginzberg.] 
Mr. Peirce to Mr. Sherman. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, January f5, 1897. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 354 of January 4, 
inclosing copy of a letter from the governor of Montana in regard to the case of John 
Ginzberg. 

Ginzberg has been, at my request, sent from Loguishin, in the Province of Minsk, 
to Libau, from which port Mr. Neils P. Bornholdt, United States consul at Riga, 
who has a large shipping business, has promised for him opportunity to work his 
passage to Antwerp. I have requested Mr. Bornholdt to instruct his agents to hand 
over to Ginzberg 95 rubles, the amount of draft which has been received for him. 
As this is to Mr. Breckinridge's order, I have told Mr. Bornholdt that I would per- 
sonally be responsible tor the payment to him of the amount, but that I awaited the 
return of the minister before remitting. Ginzberg's departure for the United States 
may be expected in the course of the next 10 days. 

I may add with regard to this case that on the occasion of my last visit to the foreign 
office regarding him the officer immediately in charge of the documents in his case 
remarked with exclamation that according to usual practice he had been very len- 
iently dealt with. 

I have, etc., Herbert H. D. Peirce, 

■ Charge d' Affaires ad interim. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 435.) 



Mr. Breckinridge to Mr. Sherman. 

Legation op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, March 8, 1897. 

Sir: Referring to the department's No. 372, of February 13, I have the honor to 
say that advices from our consul at Riga, Mr. Bornholdt, inform me that Mr. John 
Ginzberg has sailed from Libau for London by the steamer Kiew. 

It gives me pleasure to state in regard to this protracted and interesting case that 
during _my absence upon leave it has been followed up with zeal and discretion by 
Mr. Peirce, the charge d'affaires ad interim, and that his efforts received the cordial 
and efficient cooperation of Mr. Bornholdt, our consul at Riga. Mr. Ginzberg, by 
the course followed, has been slowly, but as rapidly as possible, relieved from the 
embarrassments that were found to exist even after his acquittal; and it is a great relief 
to be able to report that he is at last out of the Empire and safely on his way home. 

Remittance of 95 rubles has been made to Mr. Bornholdt to cover money advanced 
by him to Mr. Ginzberg. 

I may remark that an apparent result of the continuous and earnest efforts of the 
past two or more years is some amelioration of the unbending severity that previously 



212 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

marked the policy of the Russian Government in cases of this kind. Until, however, 
the still ineffectual efforts to effect a conventional arrangement with Russia, upon 
the subject of expatriation, are more successful, our citizens of Russian origin, unless 
with previous Russian consent, expose themselves to the gravest hardship by return- 
ing to the Empire. 

I have, etc., Clifton R. Breckinridge. 

(Foreign Relations, 1897, pp. 435-436.) 



Mr. Sherman to Mr. Breckinridge. 

Department of State, 

Washington, March 25, 1897. 
Sir: I have been gratified to receive your No. 501, of the 8th instant, announcing 
the departure of John Ginzberg for the United States and commending the course of 
the secretary of your legation when in charge of his case. 

Its happy disposition may illustrate the advantage of dealing with such matters 
in a friendljr way, without unnecessary argument on the principles involved, as to 
which the views of the United States and Russia are apparently irreconcilable. 
Respectfully, yours, 

John Sherman. 
(Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 436.) 



liability op naturalized citizens op the united states under military and 
expatriation laws op their native country. 

Department of State, 
Washington, April 1, 1901. 

Notice to American citizens formerly subjects of Russia who contemplate returning 

to that country. 

The information given below is believed to be correct, yet it is not to be considered 
as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country. 

******* 

Naturalized Americans of Russian birth of the Jewish race are not allowed to enter 
Russia except by special permission. For this they must apply to the minister of 
the interior; but the department can not act as intermediary in making the application. 

There is no treaty between the United States and Russia defining the status of 
American citizens of Russian birth upon their return to Russia. 

No one is admitted to Russia without a passport. It must be visaed by a Russian 
diplomatic or consular representative. Upon entering Russia it should be shown at the 
first Government house, and the holder will be given another passport or permit of 
sojourn. At least 24 hours before departure from Russia this permit should be pre- 
sented and a passport of departure will be granted and the original passport returned. 
A fresh permit to remain in Russia must be obtained every six months. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 453.) 



Mr. Tower to Mr. Hay. 

Embassy of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, January 10, 1901. 

Sir: I have the honor to report to you the case of a naturalized citizen named 
Giovanni J. Margolin who has recently come to Russia and now asks this embassy to 
secure him the privilege of remaining here for an indefinite time. 

The subject of this gentleman's request was brought to my attention by the United 
States consul at Riga, a copy of whose letter dated the 3d of December, as well as of 
the entire correspondence, is respectfully submitted herewith. 

This Mr. Margolin is an Austrian by birth, 32 years of age, who emigrated to the 
United States in 1895, and was naturalized before the district court of the United 
States for the southern district of New York on the 2d day of October, 1900. He has 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 213 

come to Russia with every apparent intention of remaining here, having, as he says, "a 
great number of relations in Russia and which are all connected with business houses 
of influence. " As he is a Jew, however, he has been granted a limited permit, which, 
as you well know, is required under the provisions of the Russian law, by which he 
is authorized to reside within the Empire for three months. But not content with 
this, he calls upon this embassy to exert the influence of the United States Govern- 
ment in his behalf to the end that he may secure "permission to stop in this country 
as long as my passport." The passport which he presented is dated in Berlin the 
1st day of November, 1900, and was issued there by the Hon. Andrew D. White, 
United States ambassador. 

Under the receipt of this communication through Mr. Bornholdt, United States 
consul, I replied that I should require some further details as to Mr. Margolin's origin 
and nationality before I could take up his case, and that I wished to know more clearly 
what his connection is with America, and upon what ground he calls upon the Govern- 
ment of the United States to serve him. 

Thereupon Mr. Margolin wrote me a letter of the 17th of December, from Vitebsk, 
which forms part of the correspondence hereto attached. 

It appears from the details which I have been able to obtain that this man was 
naturalized only last October and left America at once, for we find him already in 
Berlin equipped with an American passport on the 1st day of November. He has no 
interest in the United States that I can discover; he has never paid any tax there; 
has never served upon a jury. In fine, he has rendered no service of any kind to the 
country. 

Immediately upon coming to Europe, however, he seeks to employ his newly 
acquired citizenship, not for protection against personal injury, but for the acquire- 
ment of privilege in the furtherance of his own aims. 

In order to ascertain definitely whether Mr. Margolin intends in good faith to return 
to the United States and perform there his duties as an American citizen or not, I 
wrote him on the 2d of January asking him whether he wished a permit to live in 
Russia for two years, the period for which he holds his present American passport, 
and whether he sought also to remain here permanently. 

By his reply, dated the 6th of January, to which I have the honor to refer you, he 
informs me that he intends to live permanently in Russia if the imperial authorities 
will allow him to do so. 

There is nothing to show that this man had any interest in becoming an American 
citizen beyond the ptupose of using the advantages of citizenship in order to obtain 
privileges abroad which certainly would not have been asked for in his behalf by his 
own representatives if he had come to Russia directly from the country of his origin. 
Nor is it unreasonable, from his own presentation of the case, to assume that he has 
already substantially abandoned his duties and obligations as an American citizen. 

It is true he declares in his letter of the 17th of December, "I expect by importing 
different American novelties exclusively for Russia, to approve as well with the inter- 
est of my country as I think it will provide convenient for my share." A statement 
which I incline to regard as an appeal to the sentiment than an indication of a serious 
pmpose to develop American industry. And I have not been willing to comply 
with Mr. Margolin's request, because if we have on the one hand his unsupported 
declaration that he intends to introduce American wares into Russia, I respectfully 
submit that we have on the other a plain attempt to abuse an American certificate of 
naturalization. 

Charlemagne Tower. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 446.) 



Mr. Bornholdt to Mr. Tower. 

United States Consulate, 

Riga, November 3, 1900. 

Sir: Mr. Margolin, concerning whom you will receive simultaneously an official 
letter from this consulate, referred to a similar case, which he asserted had taken 
place some time ago. 

In this case, he said, the permission (to stay in Russia) had at first been refused 
by the Imperial Government, but had been granted later on, in consequence of a 
direct appeal from the Hebrew in question to the United States President. 

You are, of course, the best judge concerning the attention which this tale deserves. 
However, as I understand that Mr. Margolin intends, in case of refusal, to address 



214 TEEMIE-ATIOE" OF THE TEE ATT OF 1832. 

a similar appeal to the President, I have considered it not quite superfluous to men- 
tion to you what he told me. 

N. P. BORNHOLDT. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 448.) 



Mr. Bornholdt to Mr. Tower. 

United States Consulate, 

Riga, November W, 1900. 
Sir: According to the inclosed United States passport with Russian vise, the 
bearer of the same, Mr. Giovanni Margolin, has obtained the permission to stay in 
Russia for a period of three months on account of his being of Hebrew origin. 

Mr. Margolin informs me that he has come to Russia with the intention of forming 
commercial relations here, and that for this purpose he deems it necessary to prolong 
his stay here for about two years. 

Although this seems to be rather a long time, I make free, at the request of Mr. Mar- 
golin, to submit the matter to your appreciation in case it might be possible to obtain 
the petitioner the desired permission. 

I have, etc., N. P. Bornholdt, 



(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 448.) 



United States Consul. 



Mr. Tower to Mr. Bornholdt. 

Embassy of the United States, 

St. Petersburg, December 6, 1900. 

Sir: I have duly received your letter of the 3d of December, and your personal 
letter of the same date, in regard to Mr. Giovanni Margolin, who wishes to have a 
perrnit which he has received from the Russian authorities to reside for three months 
within the Empire extended for a period of two years. 

Before taking up this case I shall require some further detail as to Mr. Margolin, the 
country of his origin, and his connection with America. As he is a naturalized citizen 
of the United States, I wish you would ask him to state to me where and when he was 
born, when he emigrated to America, where he lived, and what his occupation was 
while there and vjlien he left there. Ask him also to state whether he pays any taxes 
in the United States; and if so, how much and where. I wish further to know whether 
he has ever served on a jury there; and in general what American interest he may 
have, if any, to strengthen his claim for protection as an American citizen. 

I return you herewith the certificate of naturalization of Giovanni J. Margolin, 
before the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, on 
the 2d day of October, 1900; and the passport of Giovanni J. Margolin, No. 2386, 
issued by the Hon. Andrew D. White at Berlin, November, 1900. 

Charlemagne Tower. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 448.) 



Mr. Margolin to Mr. Touer. 

Vitebsk, December 4, 1900. 
Your Excellency: A few days ago I received a letter from the United Sta,tes 
consul at Riga, where I applied for kind assistance to protect my sojourn in Russia, 
as an American citizen, with "the instruction to furnish the embassy on the direct way 
with some further details in regard to my person. I hereby take the liberty to com- 
ply with the order of the consul, and I venture to hope that the honorable embassy 
will convey my petition. The origin of my country is Austria, and I was born on the 
10th of October, 1868, at Stanislau, Austria, of Jewish parentage. After finishing 
different colleges of education in Austria and Germany, I went to New York with 
the purpose of entering a business career. I landed in New York on the 4th day of 
January, 1895, and lived there all the time until October 4, 1900, when I sailed for 
Europe. I was employed there for several years in prominent commercial houses as 
a bookkeeper. After acquiring some of the' important methods how to transact and 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 2 15 

own business, and possessing partly the American language, I represented in partner- 
ship wih another gentleman under our own firm a large concern in "American novel- 
ties" for sale in the State of New York. Finally I was engaged in the real estate 
business for myself until my departure, with a success capable of being named. I 
have never been taxed there and I have never served upon a jury. My intention and 
good will are to stay a citizen of the United States. Under the circumstances that I 
have a great many relatives iii" Russia and which are well connected with business 
houses of influence, I expect, by importing different American novelties, exclusively 
for Russia, to approve as well with the interests of my country, and I think it will 
provide convenient for my share. Therefore I request of the highly esteemed 
embassy to secure for me the permission to stop in this country at least as long as my 
passport, which I presume was sent to the embassy with my citizen papers by the 
consul at Riga. 

Trusting that my petition will find a favorable assistance with the honorable 
embassy, 

I have, etc., 

G. J. Margolin. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 449.) 



Mr. Tower to Mr. Margolin. 

Embassy op the United States, 

St. Petersburg, January 2, 1901. 
Sir: I have received youi' letter, dated at Whitebsk the 4th of December, 1900, in 
which you reply to the questions which I asked of Mr. Bornholdt, United States 
consul, in regard to your nationality and your naturalization in America. 

You now request me to secure for you a permit to reside in Russia "at least as long 
as your passport." By this I judge you would like a permit for two years, with the 
privilege of having it renewed when you renew yoiir passport. Is this not so, or do 
you wish a permanent residence in Russia? 

Charlemagne Tower. 
(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 449.) 



Mr. Margolin to Mr. Tower. 

Vitebsk, January 6, 1901. 

Your Excellency: I have received your letter of January 2, with which your 
excellency had the kindness to honor me, and I will hasten to submit to your excel- 
lency an obedient reply. It will deign perfectly to my satisfaction if your excellency 
shall favor me with the grace to secure for me a permit to reside as long as my passport 
as issued by the esteemed embassy at Berlin for two years is ciirrent. In case my 
enterprises should exhibit a favorable result, in every respect, I would prefer, if pos- 
sible, having the privilege of renewing your excellency's, for me, kindly obtained 
permit, together with my passport, after its expiration. I presume that to secure a 
permanent residence in Russia will be connected with many difficulties, therefore I 
have decided to aim at that idea. Finally, I take the liberty of mentioning the fact 
thatthe permission of my sojourn in Russia, originally granted to me by the Russian 
minister, as your excellency will kindly notice on my passport, will soon lose its 
validity, in consequence of which I hereby request your excellency to relieve my case, 
to your excellency's earliest convenience, with an affirmative success. 

G. J. Margolin. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 450.) 



Mr. Tower to Mr. Margolin. 

Embassy of the United States, 

8t. Petersburg, January 9, 1901. 
Sir: I have received your letter of the 6th of January. You tell me, in reply to 
my inquiry, that you wish to obtain a permit to remain in Russia at least for two years, 
and, if possible, the right to live here permanently. 

I have submitted yom- case to the Department of State, at Washington, and shall 
inform you immediately upon the receipt by me of its decision. 



216 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

In the meantime I say to you that in view of the fact that you lived in the United 
States barely long enough to become a citizen; that you have never performed any 
service there whatever, or paid any taxes; that you left America immediately upon 
having obtained your certificate of naturalization, you are not likely to be looked 
upon as one in a position to call upon the United States Government to interest itself 
in seeming a privilege for you abroad . 

Chaklemagne Towek. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 450.) 



Mr. Hay to Mr. Tower. 

Department op State, 

Washington, January 30, 1901. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 381 of the 10th instant, reporting 
the case of Mr, Giovanni J. Margolin, an Austrian by birth, Jewish faith, who emi- 
grated to the United States in 1895, was natiu-alized October 2, 1900, then went to 
Europe, secured a passport dated November 1, 1900, at the United States embassy at 
Berlin, entered Russia with a permission as a Hebrew to stay three months, and who 
now asks the good offices of this Government in order to secure the extension of that 
permission on the part of the Rxissian Government, to the full term of the passport 
or indefinitely. 

The department approves your view of the case. More satisfactory evidence should 
be forthcoming than is now submitted of Mr. Margolin's actual conservation of his 
acquired citizenship before the intervention of this Government should be exercised 
to proc\ure for him the continued privilege of residence in Russia for which he applies. 

John Hay. 

(Foreign Relations, 1901, p. 450.) 



Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormich. 

Department op State, 

Washington, April 20, 190S. 
Mr. Hay states that it is persistently reported upon what appears to be adequate 
authority that there is great want and suffering among the Jews in Kishenef, and 
that their friends in the United States desire to know if financial aid and supplies 
would be permitted to reach the sufferers. Mr. McCormick is instructed to obtain 
the desired information without discussing the political phase of the situation. 
(Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 712.) 



Mr. McCormich to Mr. Hay. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, May 9, 1903. 
Mr. McCormick reports that it is authoritatively denied that there is any want or 
suffering among the Jews in southwestern Russia and that aid of any kind is unneces- 
sary; that while the offer is appreciated in the spirit in which it was made, it is grate- 
fully declined. 
(Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 712.) 



Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, May IS, 1903. 
Sir: Referring to your cablegraphic instructions in the matter of the alleged famine 
conditions among the Jews in Kishenef, I have the honor to inclose herewith a cutting 
from the London Standard of May 1, which will throw some light on the subject of 
that instruction. 

I have, etc., Robert S. McCormick. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 217 

[From the London Standard, Friday, May 1, 1903.] 

When I arrived here late last evening, the Bessarabian capital presented all the 
appearance of a city suddenly evacuated by its inhabitants and committed to the 
charge of the military. At 11 p. m. not a civilian was to be seen on the streets, but 
the alternating patrols of infantry and cavalry were met with at intervals of a few 
hundred yards. 

Under the terror of the last few days, people of all classes and conditions carefully 
shutter and bar their windows after nightfall. On crossing the municipal boundary 
my coachman was halted by a police inspector, to whom he handed a ticket received 
at the railway station, showing whence he brought his fare. In the hotel vestibule 
I find another inspector of police questioning a group of young men, all apparently 
Jews and refugee guests, who have temporarily deserted their homes for the greater 
security of the pclice-guarded hotel. In the cross corridors of the bel-etage I pass 
two other police inspectors similarly engaged in cross-examining guests and domestics. 
Several of the former, I oberve, wear bandages. One of these inspectors following me 
to the door of the apartment to which an attendant is conducting me, salutes me 
respectfully in military fashion, desires to know whence I come, and begs to be favored 
with a glance at my passport. His examination of my papers being satisfactory, and 
his demeanor unusually affable for an official of his class, I offer htm my cigarette 
case, and essay, with a pretense of casual curiosity, to elicit some information with 
regard to the terrible and fatal tumult which has convulsed the city during the last 
few days — that is, during the Russian Eastertide. The attempt failed. The police 
inspector lauded the quality of my tobacco, smilingly observed that the discussion 
of tragic events was a bad soporific, and wished me spokoinoi notch. My room attend- 
ant goes about his duties in a curiously dejected and perfunctory manner. I ask him 
if he is fatigued and learn that he is a Jew who has lost two relatives in the murderous 
attack upon his coreligionists. 

My early peregrinations of the city this morning were made under the favor of 
delightful sunny and genial spring weather, whose brilliance enhanced, indeed, the 
glaring desolation of the scene of wreck and ruin in the Jewish quarters, more especially 
and in all the chief thoroughfares generally. 

I should say at the outset that Kishnef is for the nonce in a state of close siege. There 
are 15,000 troops in the city; 9,000 are kept in barracks under arms, and 6,000 infantry 
and cavalry are on patrol duty. All the infantry patrols and stationary pickets carry 
fixed bayonets, and the cavalry carbines are loaded with ball cartridges. These 
precautions, after the terrible outbreaks on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday last, appear 
to be unnecessarily excessive. The popular tumult and outrages ceased simul- 
taneously with the receipt of the order from St. Petersburg authorizing the governor 
and commandant to fire upon the rioters. As a matter of fact the military did not 
fire a shot during the frightful m^l6e. So far as I can gather in the best-informed 
quarters, there were 56 Jews, including 3 women and 4 children, and 7 Russians 
killed in the emeute between Easter Sunday afternoon and Tuesday evening. There 
are 339 injured people in the hospitals, the great majority of whom are Jews and 
Jewesses, including about 40 young children. About 700 arrests were made. I wit- 
nessed this morning the funerals of five victims who succumbed to their injuries 
yesterday. Added to the number given above, this makes a total of 68 lives lost, 
and the fatal record is probably not yet compete. 

Altogether, some 2,400 shops, magazines, stores, and booths were wrecked, and the 
windows of private houses, public buildings, banks, and commercial offices were 
wholly or partly shattered. Street kiosks were overturned and smashed, and sign- 
boards torn down and used as battering rams against shuttered windows and closed 
doors. The streets are still strewn with wreckage of all kinds of wares pillaged from 
the Jewish shops and booths. Desperate attempts were made upon the various banks 
and banking agencies, but these were saved by the military and are still under armed 
guards. In such leading and fashionable thoroughfares as the Alexandrofskaya and 
Pushinskaya, and in the immediate neighborhood of the official residences of the 
governor, the mayor, and the commandant, there was any amount of destructive havoc. 
Every shop in the block in which my hotel is situated is wrecked, and all the front 
windows of the hotel itself are shattered. It is in the Jewish quarter proper, however, 
in the bazaars and adjoining streets, that the full fury of the frenzied anti-Jewish 
rioters has left its desolating mark. Not a house or a shop was spared. The battered 
windows and doors are now nailed up vrith. unsightly boards, which hide the looted 
interiors. To-day the Jews are venturing out of doors under the ubiquitous and pro- 
tecting presence of the military. Here and there at courtyard gates and street corners, 
one sees small groups of sad and terror-stricken Jews and Jewesses, bemoaning their 
bereavements and material losses. The greater number appear with bandaged heads 
or arms in splints or slings. 



218 TEEMINATIOlSr OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 

There can be no manner of doubt that the outbreak took the form of a savage and 
merciless attack upon the Jews. During the Eastertide more especially the ignorant 
and fanatic orthodox Slav is prone to revenge the crucifixion of the Saviour upon his 
Hebrew neighbors, and once his passions, besotted or sober, are fully aroused, he be- 
comes a wild animal. There is just a little doubt, however, that the popular tumult 
against the Jews was engineered by the organizers of the politically disaffected secret 
associations of the Russian industrial classes, whose ramifications are taking root all 
over the country. Their object is not so much a crusade against the Jews — since 
their "tenets of freedom" are, in principle at least, opposed to such persecutions — as 
a desire to discredit the imperial and local governments. Their guiding hands were 
certainly revealed on Monday and Tuesday last, when the mob assailed, happily 
unsuccessfully, one of the orthodox churches and the offices of the holy consistory 
of Bessarabia. For three days and nights past, and at the present moment, the cathe- 
dral of Kishnef is protected by four companies of infantry. 

Although it is scarcely possible to believe that there is the slightest fiirther danger 
or even the possibility of a renewal of the disturbances, not more than a score of shops 
in the whole city are open this afternoon. All the banks, commercial houses, and 
other places of business remain closed and guarded. The cavalry patrols have each 
been increased from 30 to 50 troopers, and the infantry patrols have single to double 
companies. The garrison commandant has had the main thoroughfares paraded at 
hourly intervals all day by battalions of infantry and half squadrons of cavalry, in 
additioB io the regular patrols. The Bessarabets, a leading local journal, again pub- 
lishes yesterday's stringent injunctions from the governor. Gen. Von Raaben, warning 
the unruly elements that no mercy will be shown to any disturber of the public peace, 
who is liable to be tried by drumhead court-martial, and summarily shot. The 
ordinary justice is suspended for a calendar month and replaced by martial law. 

I am this evening credibly informed that three of the Russian victims were con- 
stables, and 29 members of the force are under hospital treatment for serious injuries. 
In the thick of the desperate fray in the Jewish quarter on Monday night 13 cavalry 
troops were dragged from their saddles and brutally beaten. The infantrymen came 
scatheless out of their many struggles with the infurated mobs, thanks to keeping their 
ranks well closed. 

April 25. — The director general of the police, Lieut. Gen. Lopuchin, arrived here 
this morning from St. Petersburg; the same special train also brought Maj. Gen. 
Schostak, commander of the Eighth Army Corps, which includes the troops garrisoned 
in this city. 

Two more of the Jews in hospital last night succumbed to their injuries. This brings 
the death roll to 70, of whom 63 were Jewish victims to the massacre. 

Just before nightfall yesterday I had the opportunity of penetrating, unmolested by 
the police or military patrols and pickets, more closely into the lanes and alleys of the 
purely Jewish quarters. Whole streets and lanes, throughout their lengths, show 
nothing but sacked houses, shops and booths. The open doors and windows gape 
darkly like those of structures gutted by fire. The contents of the shops and booths 
have been pillaged and the furniture and fittings demolished, the private dwellings of 
the Jews meeting the same fate. It is a mystery to the spectator where the thousands 
of miserable refugees thus despoiled, expropriated, and brutally abused are hiding and 
herding. Some three or four thousand have fled to Benderi, Tiraspol, and Odessa. 
"Whichever way one turns in the lower part of the city the same scenes meet the eye. 
There is one somewhat narrow street absolutely blocked between the trottoirs by more 
than a score of overturned and looted booths. It is curious — although quite customary 
under similar terrible circumstances^to observe the anxious solicitude with which the 
occupants of all the houses and shops left wholly or partially intact have hastened to 
display ikons and other sacred emblems or pictures conspicuously in every window, 
or lacking a sufficient number of ikons, have cut crosses out of white or colored paper, 
and stuck them on windows, doors, and outer walls. These are the external and 
visible signs meant to inform the rioters that the inmates are Christians. 

I foimd opportunity this morning for a brief talk with a member of the medical staff 
of the city hospital. He substantially confirmed the numbers of killed and seriously 
injm'ed given in my first dispatch. Concerning the reports of Jemsh children having 
been torn limb from limb by some of the murderers, the doctor could only say that no 
such case or cases had come under his observation, but he admitted that many of the 
Jewish victims were murdered outright, and some of them who subsequently died in 
the hospital were badly mutilated. The Russian rioter seldom or never employs the 
knife. Small hatchets and stout wooden clubs, the latter frequently held by a wrist 
strap, and stones clutched in the hands and used as battering weapons, are the chief 
features of the ruffians' armory. 

The population of Kishnef now approximates some 160,000, and includes some 
65,000 Jews. 



TBRMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 219' 

April 27. — I am this morning credibly informed that the governor, Lieut. Gen. Von 
Raaben, as well as the police master, Col. Khanzheneff, the latter's chief of staff, 
and two or three other local authorities are to be removed from their posts on account 
of their lack of promptitude, energy, and decision of action in the early and prevent- 
able stage of the dreadful emeute of last week. The minister of the mterior, M. Von 
Plevhe, is expected here within the next few days. Notwithstanding the semi- 
official assurances given yesterday by the Bessarabetz that there were no more dan- 
gerous cases among the injured Jews in the, hospital, three more have proved fatal 
within the last 24 hours. Altogether some 10,000 Jews have fled from the city. They 
are further alarmed no doubt by the sinister current reports of an intended and general 
popular outbreak against the Jews throughout the Province. The Roumanian ele- 
ments of Moldavians and Wallachs are very numerous in this city, and their inimical- 
feeling toward the Jews is quite as rancorous as those of the lower class Russians. 



RECOGNITION BY RUSSIAN LAW OF JEWISH DIVORCES GRANTED BY JEWISH RABBIS. 

Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormick. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 22, 1903. 

Sir: To enable the department to answer several inquiries it has received, I shall 
be pleased if you will ascertain whether Jewish divorces granted by Jewish rabbis- 
are recognized by the Russian law. 

If such a law is in force a translation of its text is desired. 

I am, etc., John Hay. 

Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 715.) 



Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, November 10, 1903. 
Sir: With reference to the department's No. 56, of October 22, 1903, I have the- 
honor to inclose herewith translations from the Russian code pertaining to the recog- 
nition by Russian law of Jewish divorces granted by Jewish rabbis, which were made- 
for me by Mr. Berline, an attorney in good standing and by birth himself a Hebrew. 
In addition to the memorandum sent to me by Mr. Berline, the translation of which 
is inclosed, he writes that the Russian law recognizes all certificates of birth, marriage, 
divorce, and death issued by Jewish rabbis, as well as all certificates given by minis- 
ters of the Jewish faith abroad to Russian Jewish subjects. 
I have, etc., 

Robert S. McCormick. 
(Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 715.) 



EXTRACTS OF LAW FURNISHED BY MR. BERLINE, OF THE ST. PETERSBURG BAR. 

The principal sections of the Russian law which relate to the marriage, divorce, and* 
separation of non-Christians are as follows : 

Article 20 of the Civil Code (Chap. Ill) officialedition,lS87.—Eachiacea,ixdesich-peo]^le, 
including heathen, are allowed to contract marriage according to the stipulations of 
their law or in conformity with the customs established, etc., without any participa- 
tion whatsoever of the civil authorities or of the Christian ecclesiastical authorities. 

Article 103 {Chap. iF).— Husband and wife must live together, consequently: _ 

1. All acts tending to an arbitrary separation of the couple are rigorously prohibited. 

2. The wife must follow the husband upon emigration, entrance into service, and 
likewise upon any change of residence. 

Article 1325 ( Vol. XI) oj the regulations concerning the Jewish faith (official edition of 
1896). — The functions of rabbis consist (1 and 2 unnecessary) (3) in exercising to the 
full extent the rite of circumcision, the giving of fore names to the newly born, in 
celebrating marriages and pronouncing divorces, attending funerals, and keeping regis- 
ters of the civil status of Israelites,. presenting them to the proper authorities in con- 
formity with the rules prescribed irf the laws on social classes. 

(Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 715.) 



220 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormicJc. 

Department of State, 
Washington, July 1, 1904. 

Sir: On the 21st of April last the House of Representatives of the United States 
adopted a resolution in the following words: 

"Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations with the Govern- 
ments of countries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the 
ground of religious faith or belief to secure by treaty or otherwise uniformity of treat- 
ment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authori- 
ties of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom 
of travel and sojourn in those countries, without regard to race, creed, or religious 
faith." 

The subject to which this resolution relates has heretofore been the occasion of 
friendly but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the 
part of that of the United States. The instructions on file in your office and the corre- 
spondence had by your predecessors with the imperial foreign office leaves no doubt as 
to the feeling of the United States in regard to what it has constantly believed to be 
a needlessly repressive treatment of many of the most reputable and honored citizens 
of the United States. Similar views have been expressed by my predecessors as well 
as by myself in conference with the representatives of Russia at this Capital. That 
these friendly representations have not hitherto produced the results so befitting the 
close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for more than a century and so 
much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual regard is not, in the Presi- 
dent's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring about a better understanding, 
if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal convenience. 

I have therefore to instruct you to inform Count Lamsdorff that the text of the fore- 
going resolution has been sent to you for your information and for your guidance in 
interpreting this expression of the feeling of the people of this country, through their 
direct representatives, as to the treatment of the citizens in question. You will 
make knoT;^Ti to his excellency the views of this Government as to the expediency of 
putting an end to such discriminations between different classes of American citizens 
on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themselves of the common 
privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or travel. 

That such discriminatory treatment is naturally a matter of much concern to this 
Government is a proposition which his excellency will readily comprehend without 
dissent. In no other country in the world is a class discrimination applied to our 
visiting citizens. That the benefits accruing to Russia are sufficient to counterbal- 
ance the inconveniences involved is open to question from the practical standpoint. 
In the view of the President it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to 
the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business 
whose character and position in life are such as to afford in most cases a guaranty 
against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia and whose intelligence and sterling 
moral qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and entitle them 
to win for themselves abroad no less degree of esteem than they enjoy in their own 
land. 

I have, etc., John Hay. 

(Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 790.) 



Mr. McCormick to Count Lamsdorff. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, August 22, 1904- 

Your Excellency: Under instructions from my Government which I found await- 
ing me on my return from Carlsbad, I have the honor to bring before you for con- 
sideration at this time a subject which has been the occasion from time to time of 
friendly but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part 
of that of the United States. 

The feeling of the people of the United States, which is deep and widespread with 
reference to this subject, found expression in a resolution adopted on the 21st of April 
last by the House of Representatives. 

I assume that your excellency's attention was called to this resolution at the time 
of its adoption by His Excellency Count Cassini, His Imperial Majesty's ambassador 
at Washington, and that a copy of the resolution was transmitted to you for your infer- 



TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 221 

mation. As your excellency doubtless noted at the time, this resolution is conceived 
in a friendly spirit and expressed in moderate terms, such as to recommend its recep- 
tion in a similar spirit as well as the consideration of the subject which it brings forward. 
The text of this resolution was sent me for my information in interpreting this expres- 
sion of the feeling of the American people as to the treatment of the citizens in ques- 
tion, and I beg to insert the resolution as placing that expression on record, although, 
as above indicated, a copy of the resolution has already been transmitted to you by 
Count Cassini. 

[Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

Congress of the United States, 
In the House op Representatives, 

April 21, 1904. 

Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations with the Govern- 
ments of countries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the 
ground of religious faith or belief, to secure by treaty or otherwise uniformity of treat- 
ment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the authori- 
ties of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal freedom 
of travel and sojourn in those countries without regard to race, creed, or religious faith. 

This resolution voices not only the feelings of the people, but also a principle which 
lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason that the question has 
been, is, and always will be a live question with us, and liable to become acute and 
be brought forward at some time in such a way as to seriously disturb the friendly 
relations which have always existed between Russia and the United States. 

Aside from the belief that the treatment accorded by Russia to many of our most 
reputable and honored citizens is needlessly repressive, public opinion, as your 
excellency knows, plays a large part in the foreign relations as well as domestic affairs 
with us, and when underneath this public opinion there lies an important principle, 
as is the case in the United States, it can not be left out of account by those who have 
maintained the close relations which it is desired by my Government to see maintained 
with this great Empire and her august ruler. 

"That friendly representations," as set forth in my instructions, "have not hitherto 
produced results befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for 
more than a century, and so much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual 
regard is not, in the President's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring 
about a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal 
convenience." 

Moreover, in no other country in the world is class discrimination applied to our 
visiting citizens, nor can it be seen from the practical standpoint that the benefits 
accruing to Russia are sufficient to counterbalance the inconvenience involved. In 
the view of the President, "it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to 
the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business 
whose character and position in life are such as to offer in most cases a guaranty 
against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia and whose intelligence and sterling moral 
qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and to win for themselves 
abroad a no less degree of esteem than they enjoy in their own land. " 

It seems to me that there are higher grounds to which to appeal and to which it is 
opportune to appeal at this present time than those of expediency and reciprocal 
convenience, evidences of the influence of which have manifested themselves in steps 
already taken toward the alleviation of the condition of the representatives of the race 
referred to within the Empire. 

At this time, too, when the world is extending its congratulations to His Majesty on 
an event which has brought happiness to himself and gratification to his friends; 
when he is extending the imperial clemency to some justly under the ban of the law, it 
would seem fitting to take under consideration this larger question, a solution of which 
would not only tend to draw closer the relations between this great Empire and the 
United States, but also to arouse a responsive feeling of good will throughout the 
world. 

The railway and the telegraph are breaking down the barriers of distance which 
have until now kept apart the peoples of the various nations of the earth; Russia has 
made a notable contribution to this object in the great system of railways constructed 
"within the Empire, which are operated in close connection and harmony with those 
of the outside world. To throw this great railway system open more fully to those who 
would avail themselves of it for legitimate purposes, is but to dedicate it to a use 
which would be of the greatest good to the Empire and the world at large. 

Events have proven that no artificial barrier can keep out those who come with 
hostile intent or who from without seek to circulate ideas of a hostile character. Is 



222 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

there any reason, therefore, why at least serious consideration should not be given to 
the \dews of my Government as to the expediency of putting an end to such dis- 
criminations as now exist in Russia between different classes of American citizens 
on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themselves of the common 
privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or for travel? 

In transmitting the views of my Government at this length and personally adding 
some reasons for favorable action which seem to me to be cogent, I have been actu- 
ated by the desire, as your excellency will appreciate, to contribute something toward 
those friendly relations which have marked the past and which I value. For this 
reason I lend myself most earnestly to the work of carrying out my Government's 
instructions, in the hope that the result will be such as to contribute to the removal 
of one question of disturbing character from the realm of discussion by a mutually 
satisfactory understanding concerning it. 

I take this occasion to renew to your excellency the assmance of my high consid- 
eration. 

Robert S. McCormick. 

Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 791.) 



Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, October 7, 1904. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy and translation of a note 
ceived from Count Lamsdorff, imperial minister for foreign affairs, in reply to mine 
c iAugust 22 last, relating to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives 
of the United States on April 21 last, concerning "the freedom of travel and sojourn 
in Russia, without regard to race, creed, or religious faith," of all American citizens, 
which was transmitted to me in your dispatch No. 127, of July 1 last. 
I have, etc., 

Robert S. McCormick. 
(Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 793.) 



Count Lamsdorff to Mr. McCormick. 

Ministry FOR Foreign Affairs, 

St. Petersburg, October 4, 1904. 
Mr. Ambassador: It is with special interest that I have become acquainted with 
the consideration expressed by your excellency in j^our note of August 9-22, relative 
to certaiQ facilities to be granted to American citizens of the Hebrew faith, with 
regard to their entry into Russia. In this connection I have the honor to inform 
you that a special commission has been instituted by supreme oider on December 
17, 1903, with the ministry of the interior, in view of generally revising the passport 
regulations actually in force. 

The imperial ministry of foreign affairs having appointed a representative with 
this commission, I shall not fail to bring, through his intermediary, to the knowledge 
of that commission your views on the subject and the desire of the Federal Govern- 
ment, of which your excellency has been the interpreter. 

I avail, etc., Lamsdorff. 

(Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 793.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, May 5, 1905. 
Sir: I beg leave to report that the ukase issued by the Tsar on the Russian Easter 
Sunday (Apr. 30) makes religious freedom to all Russian sects, except the Jews, an 
accomplished fact. * * * ■ f 

If the ukase is carried out in all its completeness, it will be the greatest concession of 
individual liberty since the liberation of the serfs, and may be the first step toward a 
separation of church and state. 

I have, etc., - G. v. L. Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 767.) 



TERMINATION OE THE TREATY OF 1832. 223 

Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. 

[Telegram. — Paraphrase.] 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, November 5, 1905. 

(Mr. Eddy reports that the American consuls at Riga and RostofE have asked for 
military protection. The same has been asked for and has been obtained for Riga and 
will also be given to the consulate at Rostoff . The consul at Odessa reports that severe 
conflicts between Jews and Russians were begun by the Jews. The fighting is still 
going on and probably thousands of Jews were killed . American interests at that place 
are not threatened. The situation at Warsaw is serious. Conflicts continue between 
the Poles and the Russian army. At Moscow everything is quiet. The people have 
resumed work at St. Petersburg. A large meeting occurred to-day, without conflict, 
after the funeral services of those killed in the recent disturbances. Large crowds 
assembled, composed principally of sightseers. Important concessions have been 
made to Finland.) 

(Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 779.) 



TREATMENT OF JEWS IN RUSSIA. 

The Secretary of State to Ambassador Meyer. 
[Telegram. — Paraphrase! 

Department op State, 
Washington, November 22, 1905. 
(Mr. Root informs Mr. Meyer that many influential Hebrews in this country are 
endeavoring to raise relief funds, being greatly distressed over the reports of Jewish 
loss of life and suffering in the recent outbreaks. Requests him to furnish as accurate 
report of these occurrences as possible, giving the number of killed, wounded, sick, 
and destitute, and the losses sustained.) 
(Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 831.) 



Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. 

[Telegram. — Paraphrase.] 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, November 25, 1905. 

(Mr. Eddy reports that about 100 Jews were killed and wounded in Warsaw; that 
great destitution prevails among the poorer classes, but that Jews have suffered no 
more than Christians. Bread and provisions to the value of 10,000 rubles are being 
distributed daily. As far as known, no Jews have been killed in the district of Batum. 
Seven Jews were killed and 25 wounded in the Riga district, and little or no destitu- 
tion prevails there. Suffering and destitution at Odessa are great — 560 Jews killed 
and 2,000 are in the hospitals.) 

(Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 831.) 



Chargi Eddy to the Secretary of State. 

[Telegram. — Paraphrase.] 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, November 26, 1905. 
(Mr. Eddy reports that 15 Jews were killed and 30 wounded at Rostoff; that about 
11,000 were ruined financially, the loss to Jews there amounting to about 7,000,000 
rubles. In the neighboring towns the losses of the Jews were severe, chiefly in Marino- 
pol, Ghenitchesk, Lugansk, Bahmut, and Ekaterinoslav.) 
(Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 831.) 

19831—11 ^15 



224 TEEMINATIOISr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. 
[Telegram.— Paraphrase.] 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, November 29, 1905. 
(Mr. Eddy reports that no further accurate information in regard to the destitution 
of the Jews and the losses sustained by them can be obtained. No Jews were injured 
at St. Petersbm-g and Moscow.) 
(Foreign Relations, J905, p. 831.) 



The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Meyer. 

[Telegram.— Paraphrase.] 

Department op State, 
Washington, April 7, 1906. 
(Mr. Bacon states that grave fears are felt in this country by relatives of the Jews in 
Russia, who believe that mob disturbances and unlawful attacks are planned for 
Easter, and wants to know what information Mr. Meyer has as to the precautions which 
have been taken to avert the dreadful events of former years.) 
(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1296.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 
[Telegram.— Paraphrase.] 

St. Petersburg, April 9, 1906. 

(Mr. Meyer states that he has been assured by N. Witte that there will not be any 
disturbances, and that the minister of the interior sent out a circular to all the governors 
saying they must hold the police responsible, and that this has reassured the chairman 
ot the Jewish committee. Mr. Meyer says that he thinks that disturbances will occur in 
isolated places on account of the ill feeling of some subordinates.) 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1296.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, June 16, 1906. 

Sir: I beg to report that Thursday, June 14, Corpus Christi Day, was the anniver- 
sary of the saving of Bielostok from cholera. The day was observed by orthodox pro- 
cessions, which were interrupted by pistol shots from the tops of certain Jewish houses, 
supplemented by the throwing of a bomb. This created a terrible commotion, result- 
ing in the massacre of Jews and much loss of life on both sides. 

It is diflBcult to obtain authentic and reliable information concerning the affair. The 
report, however, appears to be confirmed from several sources that the authors were 
Jewish anarchists, who fired revolvers at the Russian Church procession and killed 
several people taking part in it. This occasioned uprisings against the Jews, and out- 
rages by rioters as well as destruction of Jewish property. The troops have dislodged 
bands of rioters, and order is being slowly restored. 

The exact number of victims is unknown, but 100 killed and 250 wounded is thought 
at this time to represent the casualties. 

Bielostok is a town of about 60,000 inhabitants. Martial law has been proclaimed 
and additional troops are arriving. 

Messrs. Shtchepkin, Arokantseff, and Jakobson, members of the Duma, specially 
appointed as a committee to investigate as to the real causes of the late disturbance 
and massacre, have left for Bielostok. 

I have, etc., G. von L. Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1296.) 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 225 

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 
[Telegram.— Paraphrase. ] 

American Embassy, St. Petersburg, June 23, 1906. 
(Mr. Meyer states tljat he has been advised by a responsible party, who has just 
returned from investigating the massacre of the Jews last week, that 100 were killed 
and nearly 100 wounded, that there were several cases of mutilation, but none of 
ravishing, and that the rioters plundered considerable property of the Jews. He adds 
that evidence points to the work and enmity of the lower local military and police 
officials, who acted withe ut instructions from St. Petersburg.) 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1297.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Acting Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, St. Petersburg, July 13, 1906. 
Sir: I beg leave to inclose herewith the official communication on the disorders 
at Bielostok, and a copy of a letter ^ received from Mr. Stolypin, minister of the interior. 
I have, etc., G. von L. Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1297.) 



[Inclosure.] 
official communication on the disorders at bielostok. 

St. Petersburg, 1906. 

On the 1st of June last there occurred some very regrettable disorders at Bielostok, 
involving the death of 82 persons, of whom 7 were Christiana and 75 Jews; besides 
78 persons (18 Christians and 60 Jews) received more or less serious wounds, and 169 
dwellings and shops belonging to the Jewish inhabitants of the city were demolished, 
causing damages estimated at 200,000 rubles. 

Deeming it his bounden duty to have a rigorous investigation made into the causes 
of this deplorable event as soon as possible, the minister of the interior at once intrusted 
this mission to Mr. Frisch, a member of his council fulfilling the office of marshal of the 
court of His Majesty the Emperor. 

The information gathered by this envoy, as well as that obtained from other sources 
through the efforts of the Government, enables the following account of the events 
which took place on June 1 to be prepared, the underlying causes being at the same 
time set forth. 

The city of Bielostok, which contains about 100,000 inhabitants, has become within 
recent years the chief center of the revolutionary movement in the western section of 
the Empire. In the midst of the local population, of whom 75 per cent are Jews, 
numerous revolutionary organizations have been formed, some of which are radically 
anarchistic. These organizations, without any regard whatever for the interests of the 
peaceful and working population, pursue their purpose with dogged persistence and 
with weapon in hand by the means of attempts against the lives of the police and of the 
garrison troops stationed there for the sake of maintaining public order and opposing 
the development of revolutionary activity. The members of this organization have 
even adopted a distinctive dress in the shape of a uniform, which serves to determine 
their identity, and they have established their central headquarters in the Sourays- 
kaia, one of the streets of the city, where they do not allow either the police or the 
troops to penetrate. 

The criminal machinations of these revolutionary societies became more extensive 
in 1905, and were signalized by the whole series of murders and attempts against the 
lives of the police officers and the garrison soldiers, beginning with the murder of 
Chief of Police Metlenko, which was followed by the murder of the chief of police 
of the Eltschine district; the attempt made June 8 against the life of Chief of Police 
Polenkine, who was wounded; that of July 21, made by means of a bomb against 
the Assistant Chief of Police Goubsky and Commissioner Joulkevitch, both of whom 
were wounded; that of August 24 against Police Commissioner Samson; the murders, 
committed on different dates, of Policemen Mosguere, Moniechko, and Barantsevitch, 
and the attempts made against Police Corporals Savitsky and Costitsky, who were 
wounded, as were also eight policemen. 

1 Not printed. 



226 TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Last September, after Bielostock was declared to be in a state of siege, the activity 
of the terrorists was relaxed, but it manifested itself with renewed vigor March 1 of 
this year, when the siege was raised. Without mentioning the numerous shots fired 
at the patrols and the military rounds, a new series of murders and attempts against 
the lives of the officials began at this time. On March 4 Commissioner Rasky 
was wounded and his assistant, Koultschinsky, killed; on March 18 the noncom- 
missioned officer of the gendarmery, Rybansky, and the baggage-master, Syralevitch, 
were killed; on April 29 an attempt was made against the life of Policeman Davydoff; 
on different dates during the month of May Policemen Zenevitch and Alexietaschouk 
were wounded; Policeman Cheymann was wounded; three soldiers of the Vladimir 
Regiment were wounded ; the Cossack Lopatine was killed ; on May 28 Chief of Police 
Berkatscheff was killed by shots fired from the crowd in Sourayskaia Street, and 
finally on May 29 the soldier, Arsentseff, was killed. Within this same period six 
attacks were made with bombs by the terrorists against the buildings of local manu- 
facturers, as well as against a banking office at Bielostock. 

Within a space of three months, from March 1 to June 1 of this year, the crimes of a 
terrorist character committed against officials and private individuals of the city gave 
rise to 45 judicial investigations. In almost all the cases the authors of these crimes 
failed to be discovered, for the eyewitnesses, fearing the vengeance of the terrorists 
refused to testify. 

This series of attempts against the life, as well as other acts of violence committed 
against the peaceful inhabitants, including Jews, had produced a state of panic among 
the people of Bielostock, and when the chief of police, Berkatscheff, who enjoyed the 
public esteem of all the orderly people of Bielostock, whether Christians or Jews, was 
murdered on May 29, this crime brought the feeling of panic, as well as the general 
irritation against the promoters of these disturbances, to the culminating point. 
Rumors were spread about the city that the terrorists had decided to massacre all the 
officials, and at the same time the report was circulated that preparations were being- 
made for the pogrom (destruction) of the Jewish population, among whom, according 
to the general opinion, all the criminal attempts had originated. While these rumors 
were taking form and maddening all the inhabitants, confusion set in among the ranks 
of the police, the members of which became more and more inefficient. The best 
police officers had been killed, wounded, or crippled, and the others fearing for their 
lives had hastened to resign. To supply their places, and especially that of policemen, 
it became necessary, owing to the lack of volunteers, to appoint persons who in most 
cases had not been trained at all for this employment, so that they had continually to 
be changed. Since June, 1905, seven persons had been successively appointed in 
Bielostock to the office of chief of police, and three police officers to whom this position 
had been offered refused to accept it. 

During this same period five persons had successively held the office of assistant 
chief of police. It has been the same with the police commissioners and their assist- 
ants, who had continually to be replaced. In the absence of anyone desirous of 
holding these positions it was necessary to recruit persons from different parts of the 
Grodno government and to intrust those offices to them provisionally. The circum- 
stances above described combined together to create a state of apathy and a lack of 
initiative among the police, who even hesitated to show themselves in certain quarters 
of the city. Thus, in Sourayskaia Street, where the revolutionary organizations were 
more particularly concentrated, it had been necessary to withdraw all the police 
officers from duty, because those sent there inevitably became the victims of mur- 
derous assaults. 

The overexcitement of the population of the city on the one hand, and the dis- 
organization of the police on the other, had created a state of affairs favorable to the 
outbreak of disorders with an irresistible force at the slightest provocation. This 
provocation was furnished June 1, when a fresh assault, audaciously committed by 
the enemies of public order, brought about an outburst of general indignation on the 
part of the Christians of Bielostock. 

On this day it was customary to celebrate religious ceremonies, which are followed 
by two processions through the city, one being orthodox, in commemoration of the 
return of the United Greeks to the Russian Church, and the other being Catholic, on 
the occasion of the Corpus Christi day. These solemnities bring together not only all 
the inhabitants of the city, but also attract a great number of people from the sur- 
rounding country. In expectation of this influx of people, and in view of the excite- 
ment prevailing among the inhabitants, extraordinary measures had been taken to 
preserve order. A reinforcement of the police had been arranged and an agreement 
reached between the chief of police and the military authorities whereby the city was 
divided into two sections, in which the guards of soldiers had been doubled and placed 
under the respective orders of appointed chiefs, under the general command of the 
head of the infantry division. 



TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 227 

In spite of all these precautionary measures there were two or three places in the city 
where explosive devices were thrown, at the crowds following both the orthodox and 
the Catholic precessions. It was the same with regard to the faithful who began to 
disperse at the end of the ceremony. The processions were fired on, besides, with 
revolvers. Those who suffered from the explosion of these devices are still at this 
time under treatment at the city hospital; they are Stanislao Miliousky, janitor of the 
city school, and three women (two of whom were married to policemen), viz, Anna 
Demidiouk, Alexandra Minekowsky, and Marie Commissariouk. As far as Miliousky 
and Minekowsky are concerned, the fact of their having been wounded by the bursting 
of an explosive device was established by the testimony of the victims and confirmed 
by the juridico-medical certificates given by the physicians Jdanoff, Granowsky, and 
Rosenthal, assisted by Dr. Epstein, of the Israelite hospital. These revolting crimes 
and sacrileges brought to the spot a detachment of troops who opened fire on the houses 
from which it was supposed the revolver shots had been fired at the procession. Almost 
at the same time the "pogrom" (destruction) of the Jews by the Christian population 
broke out with the fqrce of an irresistible element, 'withoiit distinction of innocent or 
guilty. In certain places the Jews armed themselves to repel the attack, which 
increased still more the fury of the overexcited crowd . 

To follow out the course of events on June 1 in all their details when the disorders 
ceased in certain parts of the city only to begin elsewhere, and to gather the truth 
from the declarations of the victims and discriminate it from their falsehoods, either 
intentional or unconscious, is manifestly the mission of the judicial authorities who 
already have the matter in hand and are prosecuting it with all possible energy. 
While any positive conclusion before the completion of the judicial investigation 
would be premature, the Government believes that it may affirm one fact as being 
well established, viz, that the crimes against life and property were for the most part 
the work of small bands of evildoers from among the population of the city and the 
surrounding country who, acting separately, attacked the houses and stores of the 
Jews and chose for this purpose the part of the city where no troops were stationed. 
In the great majority of cases the disturbances were quelled by the detachment of 
troops who arrived in good time. Toward 6 p. m. the pillagers had been driven away 
everywhere, and at the principal entrances of the city military patrols barred the 
road against the inhabitants of the surrounding region who started toward the city at 
the first news of the "pogrom." The disorders, which had ceased in the evening were 
renewed in the morning. Attempts were made to sack a few more shops, while at the 
railroad station, where there was but a small guard owing to the troops being detailed 
to the center of the city, the Jews were suddenly attacked by a numerous crowd. 
Toward the middle of this day the revolutionary organizations proceeded to make a 
series of attacks against the troops which did not end until the night of June 4. The 
patrols were fired upon as well as the police guardhouses and the buildings of the 
staff of the Sixteenth Infantry Division and the Fourth Cavalry Division, and even 
the Government banking establishment was not spared . Three soldiers were wounded 
in these affrays. The troops, in replying to these attacks, fired on the houses from 
which the shots proceeded, and, as was to be expected, the victims included not only 
those guilty of armed aggression, but also peaceful inhabitants who were in the houses. 

The Government has already taken measures in accordance with the data secm-ed 
in the administrative investigation in order to render the activity of the local authori- 
ties more conformable to the exigencies of good order and normal conditions. As to 
the principal participants in the bloody distturbances, as well as their accomplices 
and the instigators of the crime, the courts will, without any doubt, exercise then* full 
rights in discovering, trying, and punishing them. The Government will, on its 
part, make it a duty to lend all the assistance possible to the courts in order that not 
one of the guilty parties may escape justice and the punishment which he deserves. 

The Government indignantly denies the rumors spread abroad that the anti-Jewish 
riots at Bielostock took place with the knowledge and connivance of the local admin- 
istration and of the troops at that place. The Government deemed it its duty to 
express the firm conviction that the true cause of the lamentable events at Bielostock 
must primarily be sought in the machinations of the revolutionary parties. It was 
the revolutionists who, by an uninterrupted series of murderous attacks upon the 
authorities and private individuals, wrought up a peaceful population to extreme 
fury and threw disorder into the ranks of the local police by rendering impossible the 
task which devolved upon it of preventing and promptly quelling any incipient dis- 
turbance. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1297.) 



228 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, September 15, 1906. 

Sir: Referring to the department's cabled instructions of July 31, 1906, whereby 
the embassy is directed to furnish, from time to time, information concerning the Jews 
throughout Russia, I have now the honor to give you the following facts, which I have 
gathered from Government documents, from conversations with men who are in a 
position to know the situation, and fi'om the Russian law. 

The number of Jews throughout the entire world is variously estimated at from 
9,000,000 to 11,000,000, of which number 5,140,800 live in the Russian Empire. Of 
those who live in the Empire,, 2,797,880 reside in Em-opean Russia, or about 3.2 per 
cent of the entire population; in Poland there are 815,443; in the Caucasus, 22,732; in 
Siberia, 11,941. 

To understand the position of the Jew in modern Russia it is first necessary to 
understand something of the laws dealing with and directed against him. 

The Russian Government first began to take an interest in the Jews in the year 1772, 
when, for the first time, the latter were officially received as citizens of the Empire. 
In examining the contemporary Russian laws, it is seen that they divide the Jews 
into four categories: 

(1) The ' ' Caraime " Jews : These Jews have the same rights as other Russian subjects. 

(2) The Polish Jews: These, according to the law of 1862, enjoy the rights of other 
subjects, but only within the limits of Poland itself. However, the law promulgated 
in 1891 forbids them to acquire and to cultivate as their property the land of the 



(3) Foreign Jews: Those who are not Russian subjects are not permitted to enter 
the Russian Empire and there become naturalized. The right of temporary sojourn 
in Russia can only be granted by the minister of the interior or by the Russian embas- 
sies, legations, and consulates. (Law of Mar. 14, 1891.) It is hardly necessary to add 
that Russian representatives abroad never actually give permission to foreign Jews 
to enter the Empire, even for a short time, and that such permission must be obtained 
through the ministry of the interior. It is true that the Jews living in Central Asia 
have the right to enter Russia proper, to there transact their business, and even to 
become Russian subjects, provided they register themselves immediately in one of the 
merchant guilds. But the right of citizenship, even then, can only be obtained by the 
direct permission of the minister of the interior or of the Governor General of Turkestan. 

(4) The Rabbinist Jews: The right of domicile is granted only to the Jews in Poland 
and in the governments of Bessarabia, Vilna, Kieff (with the exception of certain 
parts of the city of Kieff), Taurida (with the exception of the city cA Yalta), Klierson 
(with the exception of the town of Nikolaieff), Moghileff, Volhynia, Vitebsk, Grodno, 
Poltava, Ekaterinoslaff, Podolia, Tchernigoff, Minsk, and Kovno. No Jews have the 
right to live in Finland save those who have been domiciled there from time imme- 
morial. In the Provinces of Kouban and of Terek those only have the right of domicile 
who have obtained a degree of arts or sciences. (Law of 1892.) In Siberia, according 
to the explanation of the law by the Senate, no Jews may make their home except 
those who have lived there for several generations. The question of the status of 
the Jews in Siberia has, however, not yet been fully defined. In Kurland the right 
of domicile is accorded only to those Jews (and their descendants) who have lived 
there before the revision of the law in 1835, and in the Caucasus only to those who 
were there before the subjection of that country. 

Certain classes of Jews have the right to establish themselves anywhere throughout 
the Empire, some temporarily and others as permanent residents. Those having the 
right of permanent domicile are composed of: 

(1) Merchants of the first guild who, according to the law of 1859, are allowed to 
establish themselves in the cities, where they are registered in a guild on the condi- 
tion that they have been formerly merchants of the first guild within the Jewish pale. 

(2) Those who have the degree of doctor of medicine, doctor of laws, or are candi- 
dates for such degrees at the universities, and also all Jewish doctors as well as those 
who have graduated from the Polytechnical Institute of St. Petersburg, or from the 
Russian universities. (Law of 1879.) 

(3) Jews who ended their military service before 1874, the year when universal 
conscription was put in practice throughout Russia. These have the right to settle 
with their families on Government lands. 

(4) Artisans of the highest class. (Law of 1867.) But this latter law, though good 
in theory, amounts to very little in practice. The guilds are purely _ Christian insti- 
tutions, and to produce a certificate of membership of the first guild within the pale is 



TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 



229 



not an easy matter. Moreover, this certificate produced, the Jew must pass an exami- 
nationand pay a large fee. If he succeeds up to this point and becomes a member 
of the guild in his new place of residence, he is forced to submit to annoyances by the 
authorities, and especially by the police. The regulations are very hard on him; he 
can not trade in any town but the town in which he has settled; he can not change 
his trade; if he meets with an accident and is unable to work at his calling, he must 
return with the pale. 

The classes of Jews who enjoy the right to travel about and to reside temporarily in 
different parts of the Empire are: 

(1) Merchants of the first guild registered in the cities within the pale have the 
rights to sojourn in other governments for a period not to exceed six months each year; 
and merchants of the second guild have the same right for a period of three months 
each year. (Law of 1879.) 

(2) Those who have graduated from schools and gymnasia and wish to enter univer- 
sities and other higher schools have the right of domicile in all cities where there are 
universities and schools of the higher order. 

A significant fact is that the right of universal domicile and temporary sojourn is a 
personal right and does not apply to the wife or children of the possessor. 

There are two forms of public service theoretically open to the Jews: (a) Service by 
appointment and (b) service by election. 

(a) Such Jews are nominally admitted to the public service who have received a 
higher education and have obtained scientific degrees. But none the less many 
departments do not admit their participation, as, for example, the ministry of justice. 

(b) According to the law of 1870, the number of Jews in the village councils and in 
the councils of municipalities must not exceed one-third of the number of Christian 
members of the said council. Mayors of villages must be Christians. According to the 
laws of 1890 and 1892, Jews can not take part in assemblies for elections beyond the 
Jewish pale, and the same law forbids them to hold oifice under the municipalities 
outside the pale. Furthermore, in courts of justice, whatever the religion of the 
plaintiff or defendant, there must be more Christians than Jews in the jury and the 
foreman of the jury must be a Christian. 

Professional careers are not verj^ restricted so far as the Russian Jews are concerned. 
Most occupations of this nature are as free to them as to the Gentile. But to be a 
practicing lawyer the Government demands of the Jew that he shall, after passing 
the necessary examinations, obtain the permission of the minister of justice. Further- 
more, the number of the Jews practicing law is limited to 10 per cent of the entire 
number of lawyers throughout the Empire, so that it is rather difficult for a Jew to 
obtain admission to this calling. However, owing largely to the efforts of the lawyers 
and to the influence of more modem ideas, the above restrictions are now being taken 
in the broadest possible sense and the admission of Jews to the Russian bar is daily 
becoming more easy. 

The profession of teaching is forbidden to Jews, whether in Government institutions 
of learning or in private schools. 

According to the census of 1892, more than 35 per cent of the Israelite population 
are earning a living in cities as (a) artisans and as (b) workmen. 

(a) In 1897 there were registered in 1,200 districts a total of 500,986 Jewish artisans, 
who composed in themselves 13.2 per cent of the population of these 1,200 districts. 





Master 
workmen. 


Skilled 
workers. • 


Appren- 
ticas. 


Total. 


Men 


229,485 
29,911 


115, 784 
24,744 


79, 169 
21, 893 


424,438 
76,548 


Women 




Total 


259, 396 


140, 528 


101,062 


500, 986 





Other statistics show that, withia the Jewish pale, there are 15 Jewish artisans for 
every Christian artisan. If we suppose that two members of each family are artisans 
and that the average family is composed of five members, we find that 1,400,000 live 
by artisan labor, or nearly 30 per cent of the entire Jewish population within the pale. 
The_ statistics of the town of Mogileff show that the average salary of an independent 
Jewish artisan amounts to as much as 500 rubles ($250) yearly; that of an artisan who 
is not independent is about 240 rubles ($120) a year. The working day for the former 
la from 11 to 13 hours, for the latter anywhere from 15 to 18 hours. Such a number of 



230 



TEEMHSTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 



working hours seems almost impossible, and yet it is the life lived by most of the 
poorer Russian Jews. The fact that they are none the less a fairly healthy and long- 
lived class speaks highly for the stamina of the race. 

The greater part of the Jewish working class (as distinguished from the artisans) is 
employed in domestic service. Of this class there are about 170,000 men and women. 
There are also about 100,000 day laborers, of whom 32,000 are engaged in quaiTying 
and as teamsters, 30,000 as bearers of burdens and porters, 20,000 as woodcutters, 
sawyers, terrace-makers, pavers of streets, etc., and 13,000 are employed on farms or 
live in small towns and seek their employment in the surrounding fields. The number 
of Jews employed in factories within the pale, including Poland, approaches 50,000. 

The following table gives an idea of the employment of Jews within the pale, with 
the exception of Poland. The percentages given indicate the proportion of Jews 
among the entire number of workers: 



Products. 


Govem- 

rhents of 

Northwest. 


Southwest. 


South. 


Glove makers 


Per cent. 
100.0 
95.2 
84.7 
62.4 
25.4 
14.9 
4.2 
49.4 


Per cent. 

100.0 

12.0 

81.1 

100.0 

4.2 

15.2 


Per cent. 


Matches 




Soap 


63.6 


Sweetmeats 






21.4 




.2 


Mechanics 




Bricklayers . . . . 


8.8 


3.0 







It is especially noteworthy that the number of Jews engaged in planting tobacco 
and in the cigar and cigarette manufactories is everywhere greater than the number 
of Christians so employed. For example, in 1899 the total number employed in the 
tobacco plantations amounted to 3,720, of which number 3,431 were Jews, or 92.3 
per cent. The number of women and children employed is in general greater than 
the number of men. For example, in 1899 in the government of Grodno the women 
and children composed 74 per cent of the total, and in the government of Ekater- 
inoslaff the percentage was 91. 

In regard to agriculture in its more general form the Jews are discriminated against. 
The law of 1804 allowed them to cultivate and own the unoccupied lands belonging 
to the Crown, and the enjoyment of these rights were on very advantageous conditions. 

After 1850 the Government began to organize agrarian colonies on a large scale; 
but the lands which were available were not very fertile and the sums of money 
appropriated for the purpose were insufficient; now, these agrarian colonies have a 
very hard time of it. Many of them have ceased to exist, for the conditions imposed 
for the right to cultivate the Crown lands are so severe for the Jews that they no longer 
dare to enter into any agreement. The poverty among this class is unbelievable. 
Their food consists largely of cabbage soup and a sort of broth made out of grain. 
Meat is an almost unheard-of luxury. One wooden spoon has to suffice for an entire 
family, as the cost of one for each member of the family can not be borne; yet a 
wooden spoon can be bought for 3 kopecks (14 cents). While traveling through the 
country on a sleigh on a shooting expedition, I once threw away a piece of newspaper 
which had been used as wrapping for a parcel. This happened in a village, and those 
inhabitants who were standing about almost fought one another for it. On inquiry 
I found they wished the piece of old newspaper to make cigarettes of and '^to wrap 
things in." There is a lying-in hospital supported by charity in St. Petersburg 
itself, where it is a common occurrence for women to wrap up their newly born chil- 
dren in newspapers when leaving the hospital for their homes simply because they 
could not afford to buy even a piece of flannel cloth suitable for the purpose. My 
own experiences have all been within 100 miles of St. Petersburg, but I have seen 
enough poverty even in this prosperous section of the country to give a good idea 
of what the condition must be of the poorer Jewish agricultural people within the pale. 

In the Jewish agricultural colonies above mentioned there are within the pale 
13,000 families, making in all about 76,000 persons, who are in possession of 98,000 
arpents of land. Of this land only 17,000 arpents are the personal property of the 
Jews. Seventy-eight thousand arpents compose the land ceded by the state, and 
3,000 arpents are rented. 

Jews have the free right to acquhe property in all the towns and villages within the 
pale with the exception of certain parts of the cities of Kieff, Yalta, and Sebastopol. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 



231 



The law of 1903 forbids Jews to acquire real estate outside of the towns and villages 
beyond the pale. 

The conditions for holding real properly and for the renting of lands are more favora- 
ble to the Jews in Poland than anywhere else. The law of 1862 allowed them to buy 
and to rent land, except (law of 1891) the land belonging to the peasants. The fol- 
lowing table shows the proportion of land belonging to the Jews within the pale, and 
within the Kingdom of Poland: 





The 15 governments of 
the pale. 


The 10 governments of 
Poland. 


Outside of 
the pale.i 


Total. 




Number of 
arpents.2 


Percentage 
of total. 


Number of 
arpents. 


Percentage 
of total. 


Number of 
ai-pents. 


Real property owned 


411,108 
521,649 


0.58 
.74 


240, 273 
37,765 


2.13 
.33 


718, 160 
53,807 


1 , 369, 541 




613,221 






Total 


932,757 


1.32 


278,038 


2.46 


771,967 


1,982,762 











1 Outside the pale: European Russia, 745,646; Caucasus, 5,072; Siberia, 18,753; Central Asia, 2,496; total, 
771,967. 

2 An arpent is equivalent to about 550 square yards. 

The Russian Government first took up the question of Jewish public education at 
the beginning of the ninteeenth century, when the Jewish question first claimed 
their attention. The law of 1804 stated that "all children of Jews are to be received 
and educated, without any discrimination whatever between them and the children 
of Christians, in the Russian schools, gymnasia, and universities." This law also 
stated that "no one shall be turned from his or her religion under any pretext what- 
soever;" and, fm'ther, "the degrees which shall be conferred upon Jews as a recom- 
pense for their personal efforts shall be fully recognized." 

None the less the Jews did not place their children in Russian institutions of 
learning, where everything would have been strange to them — customs, language, 
and even the studies themselves. During the intervening 40 years the Jews, with 
the permission of 'the Government, founded only three private schools — in 1822 at 
Ouname, in 1826 at Odessa, in 1830 at Vilna. In 1835, according to the Government 
statistics, there were only 11 Jews in all the Russian universities, and in 1840 only 
72 Jews in all the Russian Government schools. But at the present time there are 
an appreciable number .of Israelite students in the universities. In the St. Peters- 
burg Universitv there are 140, or 3.64 per cent of the entire number; at Kharkoff 
395, at Kieff 363, at Novo-Rossik 255, at Tomsk 140, at Warsaw 170, at Kazan 64. 
The total proportion in all Russian universities is about 10.6 per cent Christians for 
every Jew. As the number of Christians in Russia is about 14 times the number of 
Jews, it will be seen that the proportion of Jews desirous of obtaining an education 
is greater than that of the Christians. It may be added that the Israelite students 
in the universities, though somewhat addicted to socialistic and anarchistic doc- 
trines, are, for the most part, very intelligent, and take a fairly high rank in the 
examinations. They specialize largely in the learned professions, medicine and 
law having the greatest number of followers. 

In 1844 the Emperor Nicholas I promulgated a law according to which it was 
decided to establish special schools for Jewish children in all the towns and villages 
within the pale. These schools were to be of two classes, a higher and a lower. For 
school-teachers there were provided certain training schools; but these institutions 
did not gain very much sympathy from the Jews, and therefore measures were taken 
to cause the Jews to enter their children in them. The authorities simply demanded 
the parents to cause their children to attend; but it was only after Jews had been 
appointed as inspectors of these schools that the new movement began to obtain 
Jewish approval; but in 1873, for some unknown reason, these schools were all closed, 
and the result was that the number of Jews in the Government schools and universi- 
ties was greatly increased. In 1887 the then minister of public instruction, M. 
Delianoff, decided to limit the number of Jewish students. This measure was car- 
ried into effect, and the number of Jews was reduced to a certain percentage of the 
total number of students in the different localities. For the institutions within the 
pale this was fixed at 30 per cent; outside the pale, 5 per cent; and at St. Petersburg 
and Moscow, 3 per cent. Moreover, there were a certain number of institutions 



232 TEEMINATIOIsr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

where Jews were not received at all. After this the number of Jewish students 
began to diminish as follows: 





Number of 

Jews in 

1881. 


Number of 

Jews in 

1894. 


Preparatory schools 


Per cent. 
12 
8 


Per cent. 
6 2 


High schools 


5.2 






Total 


20 


11 4 







In the universities the same results followed; in 1886 the Jews composed 12.7fper 
cent and in 1894, 4.4 per cent of the entire student body. In the higher technical 
schools a limit was also placed; the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology received 
3 per cent, the St. Petersburg School of Mines 5 per cent. Some of the higher insti- 
tutions were entirely closed to the Jews, such as the St. Petersburg School of Elec- 
trical Engineering, the Military School of Medicine, the St. Petersburg School of Civil 
Engineers, etc. 

After placing these limits on the Government schools in general the minister of 
education began the opening of the present plan of Jewish public education, which has 
resulted in the following system: 

In the cities and towns within the pale there are 800 Jewish schools with 600,000 
pupils, but this number of schools is really insufficient, as more than two-thirds of 
the villages remain without schools. The State schools compose altogether one-fifth 
of the entire number of Jewish schools, the public schools one-fifth, and the private 
schools three-fifths. Beyond this there are 25,000 Jewish schools which are not under 
State control, with a total of 300,000 scholars. Unfortunately there is a dearth of capa- 
ble instructors, as the two institutions for the training of teachers are entirely inade- 
quate. 

The special taxes paid by the Jews in Russia, apart from the taxes which they pay 
in common with all other subjects of the Empire, are divided into two classes which 
are known as general taxes and special taxes. The former are taxes on all animals 
killed for food and are known as the ' ' korobochny sbor . ' ' Each animal killed is taxed ; 
on beef this amounts to about 1 cent per pound. Each chicken killed after the Jewish 
custom is also taxed. Then there is the special payment to the Government for the 
right to sell meat which has been killed and prepared in accordance with the Hebrew 
customs. This tax falls very heavily upon cretain classes of the Jews. By those who 
do not observe the strict teachings of the Mosaic creed it is not felt at all, while those 
who live up to their religion with all its usages are very much affected. 

The special taxes comprise many small ways of collecting money from the Jews, 
e.g., the tax paid by the Jews for the right to rent houses, shops, etc., as well as the 
tax on factories owned by them. The collection of these taxes is farmed out by the 
Government of each Province. 

Another special tax is what is known as the "candle tax." (Law of Jan. 17, 1848.) 
By this law there is a special payment to be made for every candle which is burned 
by the Jewish families on Friday evenings. The revenue from this is divided between 
the public instruction of the Jews and the administration. At the present day, how- 
ever, this candle tax exists only in name. It has been found more easy to take a 
fixed sum each year from the "korobochny sbor" for both objects named above (public 
instruction and the administration) . 

According to the law of 1862 the Jews have the right to open publishing houses for 
the printing exclusively of Jewish books . Permission for this is obtained only through 
the minister of the interior. Each printing press is taxed according to its size. Small 
presses pay 20 rubles ($10) a year, while large rotary presses pay up to 240 rubles ($120) 
yearly. 

In 1874, when universal conscription was introduced in Russia, no particular regu- 
lations were laid down in regard to military service for the Jews. But two years later 
many restrictions were instituted, chief among which were the following: 

(1) Jews can not serve in the regiments of the guards, in the frontier guards, in the 
gendarmerie, or in the navy. 

(2) No Jew can attain the rank of ofiicer in the army or navy. No matter what his 
capacity may be, he can not be admitted to the examinations for a commission. 

(3) The families of Jews who have fled the country to avoid military service must 
pay a fine of 300 rubles. 



TERMINATION OP THE TEEATT OF 1832, 



233 



These regulations, however, have failed to attain their end. For each year the 
number of Jews who do not materialize for military service increases in a startling 
manner. It is almost impossible to obtain accurate statistics on which to base a state- 
ment as to how many young men should yearly be called upon to perform military 
ser^dce. During the past 20 years more than 1,000,000 Jews have emigrated from 
Russia to America alone, of which number two-thirds have been men. But if we 
take the census of 1897 as a basis, we find that the Jewish population of Russia was 
4.13 per cent of the Avhole, and as the number of young males of 21 years of age is 
nearly always the same among all peoples, we are safe in saying that the correlation 
between the male Jewsof 21 and the male Christians of 21 is also 4.13. However, the 
following statement gives an entirely different result: 







There 










should 




Difference 




Christians 


have been 


Number of 


between 




and Jews. 


of Jews 

(at 4.13 

per cent)— 


Jews taken. 


sec. 2 and 
sec. 3. 


There were called upon to serve 


1,053,572 


43,512 


58,635 


15,123 


Number taken for service 


320,832 


13,250 


19,911 


6,661 







According to official reports there were taken Jews less 1,970 

And nevertheless there were actuallj^ taken 4,691 

The Russian point of view is, briefly, about as follows: 

A Jew comes to a Russian village in which the peasants have been living in peace 
and quietness. The peasant is by nature a good-natured, stupid, hard-working indi- 
vidual, who has never thought it possible for himself to gain more than enough to 
keep himself and his family in food, clothes, and fuel, with a more or less solid roof 
to cover them. In a short time the Jew, by his keener intelligence and greater 
energy, begins to get money by perfectly lawful buying and selling. Then the Jew 
lends money, taking as security the land or house or personal property of the peasant. 
Then comes the foreclosures and the consequent enmity, which leads in many cases 
to violence. The Jew is unwilling to relinquish what he has got hold of by legal 
means. The peasant considers himself wronged and tries to even up things in his 
own way. The Jewish point of view is well given in a statement of their case which 
was made as a memorial from 32 Jewish communities in Russia, presented to the 
committee of ministers on March 9, 1905. A translation of this memorial reads as 
follows : 

"The measures taken in the last quarter of a century dealing with Russian Jews 
have directly tended to drive them to beggary and to leave them without means of 
subsistence, the benefits of education, and human dignity. A continuous system of 
persecution was artfully devised and regularly put into force. When the common 
people massacred the threatened Jews in the towns the bureaucracy judged it proper 
to take away the right to live in the country districts and to acquire any property 
there. By law and by means of administrative measures not only was further settle- 
ment in the villages prohibited, but at the same time crowds of people, settled in 
the 50-verst zone and Provinces outside of the pale, were driven into the towns, and the 
very limits of the pale were narrowed. In the government outside of the pale certain 
privileged localities were created where only persons who had completed their studies 
were allowed to come (Moscow, the government of Moscow, the military Provinces 
etc.). Finally, one part of the Empire was closed to all Jews but convicted criminals. 

In consequence of these measiu-es and the forced migration of a mass of people, 
the population of the pale increased. In spite of a considerable emigration beyond 
the ocean and to European countries, there are actually 4,200,000 Jews inclosed 
within the walls of towns, and only 700,000 within the villages of this great district. 

Measures were taken to prevent the Jews from entering middle and high schools; 
to counteract their wish to learn, percentage restrictions were imposed. Jews were 
admitted to the middle schools with the greatest difficulty; thousands were not ad- 
mitted. Only units entered the high schools. These few fortunate ones had not the 
right to enter the public service; they could only become lawyers with the permis- 
sion of the minister of justice, and for 15 years this permission was never accorded. 

Without exaggeration it might be said that the whole machine of state aimed at 
making it impossible for Jews to exist in Russia. Every department had something 
to say on the Jewish question. It seems improbable, but it is certain, that not long 
ago every measure was the more popular the more it was intended to persecute and 
destroy the people who were considered the enemies of God and man. It was in 



234 TEEMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

short, even a short time back, found necessary to forbid Jews to acquire real estate 
in the interior of Russia, in spite of the fact that only in three governments is prop- 
erty held by Jews more than 1 per cent of the entire amount. The bureaucracy has 
persecuted the Jews by all means and in all their aspirations. It has gone so far that, 
even in creating savings banks, Jewish founders were not allowed to elect directors 
from among their coreligionists, and Jew workmen, united for mutual help, were 
•obliged to intrust their affairs to casual and disinterested persons. 

A large percentage of the Jews settled in the towns of the pale (in some 60 per cent, 
and calculated on the payment of municipal rates, 90 per cent), have no right to take 
part in municipal administration, and their needs are provided for by persons who are 
not interested in the town, and are ignorant of the needs of the local population. 

It would be difficult to summarize all those legal and administrative restrictions 
which hamper the Russian Jew from his birth to his death. WTierever he lives — 
within or without the pale — he is not guaranteed either from material ruin or moral 
outrage at the caprice of the authorities. He is at the mercy of the police. 

The aim of the administration has been achieved even in a greater degree than those 
responsible for this system would wish. Among the Jews of the pale, who for the most 
part consist of a half-starving crowd, a fifth are dependent on charity, and in the large 
towns, such as Wilna and Berdicheff, as much as a fourth and even a third. Such a 
percentage of paupers can not be equaled in any country in Europe. 

Living side by side with this mass of paupers, is a proletariat of workmen and arti- 
sans. The only condition — writes an inquirer into the conditions of the Jewish 
working class — which makes it impossible for a workman to toil otherwise than as a 
slave, is the right to move from one place to another, and Jewish workmen are in fact 
subjected to severe restrictions or are without this right. If they do not wish to die 
of hunger, or to go begging, they must submit to every condition. On the other hand, 
Jewish capitalists are subjected to many restrictions, and it is difficult for them to be 
in touch with the extensive markets and purchasers outside the pale. 

The disabilities of the Jews have also influenced the economical prosperity of the 
Christian population; the removal of Jews from participation in economic life ham- 
pers trade, and also imposes restrictions on the Christians in the domain of credit and 
the free disposal of property. An eloquent proof of this is the attempt of many Chris- 
tian landowners to evade these restrictions by fictitious leases or deeds of sale. 

Restrictive laws demoralize the authorities who cany them out. The Government 
has latterly recognized that everlasting deportations of Jews are only a temptation to 
the police authorities, and have a demoralizing effect on a nation. Under such influ- 
ences the authorities look upon the Jews as a people outside of the law, for whom there 
are no courts and no protection. It leads to innocent people being persecuted, ruined, 
and even murdered, as is shown by the Kishineff, Gomel, and Moghileff massacres. 

The only way to improve the sad lot of the Jewish population in Russia is to give 
them the same rights as the rest of the nation, as has been done in all European coun- 
tries. 

Beyond the right of taking part on an equal footing with other citizens in political 
and social life, justice demands that they should have the same elementary rights of 
citizenship — freedom of action, freedom of profession, the rights to acquire property, 
the right to be educated . Freedom of movement and freedom of occupation are closely 
connected with, and are indispensable to the well-ordered state. These rights give 
a man the possibility to develop and apply his capacity and strength to gain the means 
of existence in those occupations which he finds congenial and in the place which is 
congenial. These are the elementary rights of every human community, and every 
obstacle to freedom of movement, of occupation, and the acquisition of property, are 
felt as being a cruel persecution and an encroachment on the rights of humanity. The 
struggle of life is already hard enough without creating further obstacles in the way of 
earning a living, whether physical or intellectual. On the contrary, initiative and 
independence must be encouraged. For this pm-pose all races and creeds must be 
allowed free development. 

"When the object is to better the lot of a people, then small means have less than 
small results; they have no effect at all." This is a truism which no one denies. A 
gradual change, which only prolongs the evil, has already been condemned by the 
Russian statesman, B. N. Chicherin, with special reference to the Jewish question. 
"Restriction of rights," he declares, "is a kind of punishment. If I am convinced 
that the man is being punished wrongfully, why is it necessary to gradually change his 
punishment? " 

Such a gradual change is not only unjust but it is ineffectual. The Jewish people 
in all its ills feel profoundly, not only physical and material wants, but also the moral 
outrage of their degraded position. JEalf measures are no reparation for an injury. A 
people of many millions, aroused to consciousness of its right to existence, can not • 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 235- 

indefinitely remain a race of suspects. Most of the legislative and administrative 
enactments concerning the Jews of the last 25 years have been based on the danger 
that they are supposed to represent to the prosperity and greatness of the country. 
This idea has been spread by certain sections of the press to draw attention from the real 
evils of Russia; it was proclaimed by the bureaucracy because the "pernicious aspira- 
tions and activity of the Jews seemed to be a convenient explanation of all our mis- 
fortunes." "Russia for the Russians." This formula justified and explained every- 
thing, excluding from the number of Russians the following of foreign creeds, although 
they had been settled in the country for centuries. But is the unity and stability of a 
great empire really guaranteed by narrowing the foundations? Not only in their pres- 
ent trials, but when they have passed, the thoughts of the Russian people should be- . 
directed to reconstituting their internal strength. Union is only possible by unity 
of interests and sentiment. Restrictive laws condemning the Jews to poverty and 
demoralization paralyze all their efforts toward normal activity, having driven hun- 
dreds of thousands of energetic, laborious persons beyond the seas, and have sapped at 
the root of the intellectual strength of a people of many millions, to the detriment of 
the whole country. 

All Jews in Russia are at present animated by one thought, that the cruel force of 
endless limitations and restrictions is sapping the very foundation of their existence; 
that such an existence is no longer tolerable. Wearied by the past, seriously anxious 
for the future, the Jews are awaiting for the complete restoration of their strength and 
a final abrogation of all exclusive laws, in order that, free and equal with other citi- 
zens of a great country, they may labor for its welfare and prosperity. 

With this feeling on both sides it seems hopeless to try to arrange matters satisfac- 
torily. The religion of the member of the Orthodox Greek Church teaches him that 
the property of the Jew is not to be looked upon as is a fellow Christian, and the severe 
tenets of the Christianity of three centuries ago still hold the people in this Empire, 
from the highest to the lowest. It is true that the faith of the people in the governing 
class has recently been practically broken, but their faith in their church has prac- 
tically remained unchanged, and in considering the Jewish problem in Russia it must 
not be forgotten that the Russian point of view is, at bottom, a religious feeling, while- 
the point of view of the Jew is purely ethical. 

The Jews are not taking the ill treatment and oppression with peace and resignation. 
This is a point which should be well understood in considering their position. During 
the past 20 years their opposition, while unorganized and misdirected, has none the 
less been so strong and unquenchable that neither prison nor bodily suffering, nor the 
whips of the Cossacks, nor transportation to the farthest limits of Siberia, nor even the 
death penalty itself, has been able to keep them quiet. 

It is said bj^ many writers on this subject (Christians as well as Jews) that the Prus- 
sian Government, unable to cope with the question themselves, have been stirring up 
the minds of the uneducated masses against the Jews to an extent which has resulted 
in the unfortunate massacres at Kishineff and elsewhere. It is not asserted by reason- 
able men that the St. Petersburg Government had a hand in these massacres. What 
is meant is that the Government is trying to make it harder and harder for a Jew to- 
remain in Russia, and are prejudicing the people against the Jews to that end. 

When Boulyguin gave it out that the Jews were not to have representatives in the 
Douma, the entire Jewish population came out Avith so strong a protest that the Gov- 
ernment saw they must drop the matter for the time being at least. This shows con- 
clusively that the united voice of the Jews in Russia carries weight enough to change 
the plans of the Government in some respects — a state of affairs which would have been- 
considered absurd 20 or even 10 years ago. So it is possible to believe that the con- 
dition of the Jewish population, bad as it is, is also no worse than it has been, and it 
seems just to hope that the near future will bring the same betterment of conditions to 
them as it bids fair to bring to the Russian people generally. 

I have, etc., Spencer Eddy. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1300.) 



Charge Eddy to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, September 19, 1906. 
Sir: In confirming my cablegram to the department of the 11th instant as follows: 
"Consul at Warsaw telegraphs that a disturbance exactly similar to the one at 
Bialystok is taking place at Siedletz. Details lacking as yet." 

I have the honor to inclose, for the further information of the department, a copy of 
a letter, dated the 14th instant, from the vice consul in charge at Warsaw, in which. 



236 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

he gives details regarding the disturbances at Siedletz. In this connection I also 
inclose translation of a telegram, published in the local papers, dated Siedletz, Sep- 
tember 12, giving the official account of the occurrences. 

I have, etc., Spencer Eddy. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1311.) 



[Inelosure 1.] 

Vice Consul Fuchs to Charge Eddy. 

American Consular Service, 

Warsaw, September 14, 1906. 

Sir: I have the honor to confirm my wire of the 10th instant, reading: "Siedletz 
exact repetition of Bialystok." 

In supplement to this and to the general report of the "pogrom," as given by the 
press, I wish to add the following particulars: 

There can not be the least doubt but that the "pogrom" was premeditated and 
prepared by the troops, soldiers having been seen on the eve of the massacre to enter 
lodgings and instruct the Christian population to hang out devotional objects as 
preservatives against what was going to happen. There was no khooligans on the 
premises, it appears, to provoke or to take part in the massacre. 

I am informed from reliable quarters that the number of Jews killed amounts to 
137 (corpses identified), the number of wounded about thrice as many. The Jewish 
shops and houses along the principal streets and the central market pillaged. 

Characteristic feature is that in opposition to the wholesale massacre of the Jewa 
and devastation of their homes was killed one Christian civilian and one soldier, 
another soldier being wounded. As to property, one Christian shop and one hotel 
plundered. 

On the other hand, however, it can not be denied that attempts upon the lives of 
the gendarmes, higher police officials, and military men had lately been numerous in 
Siedletz. 

I have, etc., Witold Fuchs, Vice Consul. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1311.) 



[Inelosure 2.— Press telegram. — Translation.] 

[Official.] 

details of the disorders at siedletz. 

Seidletz, August SO, 1906. 

In the afternoon of August 28 (Sept. 10) an officer was shot from the balcony 
of a house in Igorodnaia Street. Seven young men were arrested. The night of the 
29th was quiet. 

On the 29th (Sept. 11), at daybreak, another officer was fired at in Slodolnaia Street. 
The troops opened fire against both houses. During the night of the 30th (Sept. 12) 
two shots were fired from the garden in front of the treasury. It is evident the sen- 
tinels were aimed at and they replied by firing eight shots. 

Up to the present six Jews and one Jewess have been registered as wounded at the 
Christian hospital. One Catholic was skilled and another died of fright. At the 
Hebrew hospital there are 17 Jews killed, 12 severely wounded, and 60 slightly 
wounded; 21 bodies have been buried at the Hebrew cemetery. 

Fifty -four persons , of whom 43 had used arms , were arrested . A dragoon accidentally 
killed himself. Twelve places were set on fire, but all of them were localized. Seven 
shots were fired from artillery, making breaches in two houses on Penknaia Street. 
The firing was concentrated on the houses in the center of the town. 

The furniture of several apartments was damaged. The merchandise in several 
shops was injured. Large quantities of goods were stolen. To-day the town is quiet. 
A military committee has arrived from Warsaw. The Jews continue to remove from 
the towns to neighboring villages. 

The reports published in Polish newspapers are intentionally false or exaggerated, 
in order to produce sensation. There have not been disorders in other parts of this 
government. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1312.) 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 237 

Ambassador' Meyer to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, September 22, 1906. 
Sir: I have the honor to report that Baron Gunzburg, representing the Siedletz 
Jews, called upon M. Stolypin to urge against the trial of the prisoners by court-martial. 
The minister expressed his profound regrets for the excesses that had taken place 
and his determination to thoroughly investigate the facts and publicly distribute 
the responsibility, no matter upon whom it may fall. He also complied with the 
request of Baron Gunsburg notifying the governor general of Warsaw of the desirability 
of having recourse to the ordinary tribunals. 

The premier, in conclusion, expressed the hope that the Siedletz riots would con- 
stitute the very last ordeal for the Jews, and touching the question of Jewish dis- 
abilities, he stated he would shortly introduce a bill extending Jewish rights and 
leaving it to the Douma to bestow absolute equality. 

I have, etc., G. v. L. Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1312.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, November 1, 1906. 
Sir: I beg leave to report that at the sitting of the council of state last Saturday 
the question of according ordinary political rights to the Jews came up for discussion. 
Some divergency of opinion was manifested. It was finally decided by a vote of 
28 to 16 not to deal separately with the Jewish problem, but to regard it as forming 
part of the general question of granting equal political rights to all nationalities in the 
Kussian Empire. 

I have, etc., G. v. L. Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1313.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, December 1, 1906. 
Sir: I beg leave to report that a semiofficial note, published this week, on the Jewish 
question states that the questions of permission for Jews to acquire land in all parts 
of Russia and the removal of the limits for Jewish settlement must be left to the Douma. 
While, however, such provisions would be at present premature, the three following 
measures will be carried out before the summoning of the Douma: The removal of 
the restrictive police regulations in 25 Governments lying within the Jewish pale; 
the promulgation of similar arrangements for Jews outside of the pale; and the removal 
of the restrictions under which Jews labor regarding trade. 

I have, etc., G. v. L. Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1313.) 



Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State. 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, December 31, 1906. 

Sir: 1 beg leave to report that, in a conversation with Baron Gunzbitrg, I learned 
today that it was definitely known that the Emperor had decided not to aflSx; his signa- 
ture to the bill presented by Stolypin granting certain privileges to the Jews, referred 
to in my dispatch of December 1, No. 705, namely: 

The removal of the restrictive police regulations in 25 governments lying within 
Jewish pale; the promulgation of gimilar arrangements for Jews outside the pale; and 
the removal of the restrictions under which the Jews labor regarding trade. 

It is understood that the Tsar stated that as the Duma was to meet within a few 
weeks it was better and wiser that no new legislation should be promulgated. 



238 TEEMIFATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

# 

Ever since this bill has been laid before the Emperor by the prime minister the 
reactiomsts have been actiVe in their efforts to prevent the same bScZing a law It 
IS felt that the attempt on Dubassoff's life and the assassination of Count Sieff have 
assisted the opponents to the bill in affecting the Emperor's decision '"''^''^" ^^^^ 
y..!^^l believed by many that the Emperor is not necessarily opposed to this legislation 
'hllS LTa£n t'hVSa!^ "^"^ '^'^'^ *^^^^^'^"^ theXpire he prefirs actL 

^ ^^^^' ^*^-' G. V.L.Meyer. 

(Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 1313.) 



APPENDIX II. 



The Passport Question. 
[Reprint from the American Jewish Year Book 5672.] 

In April, 1832, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan was 
sent as United States Minister to Russia, charged with the duty of negotiating a treaty 
of commerce and navigation with that country. His life, by George Ticknor Curtis, 
and his recently edited correspondence, by John Bassett Moore, show that, with the 
exception of the distinguished Count Nesselrode, the Russian ministers were averse 
to the negotiation of such a treaty. It was due mainly to the favorable attitude of 
Nesselrode and the cautious and enlightened diplomacy displayed by Buchanan that, 
on December 18, 1832, the well-known treaty was signed by Buchanan and Nesselrode. 
Immediately transmitted to the Secretary of State, Edward Livingston, who had 
succeeded Martin Van Buren in that office, it was on February 22, 1833, forwarded 
by President Jackson to the Senate and on the same day referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations. Five days later it was reported back to the Senate by John 
Forsyth, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (later, from 1834 to 1841, 
Secretary of State), without amendment, and was agreed to by a unanimous vote, 40 
Senators voting in favor of its ratification. It was ratified by President Jackson on 
April 8, 1833; ratifications were exchanged in Washington on May 11, 1833, and on 
the same day it was proclaimed, and has ever since constituted part of the supreme 
law of the land, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. 

It is safe to say that if those sturdy Americans, Andrew Jackson and James Buch- 
anan, had even remotely conceived a tithe of the humiliation and indignity which 
would be inflicted upon the honor of the United States by the flagrant violation of the 
specific terms of the first article of this treaty by the Russian Government for more 
than 40 years, in the very teeth of a continuing remonstrance on the part of the 
United States, they would never have participated in the creation of such a treaty. 

Until after 1865, no question arose between the United States and Russia as to the 
interpretation of the terms of the first article of the treaty; but by that time Russia's 
comparatively favorable attitude toward her Jewish subjects was altered, and with 
the change came the reading into the treaty of 1832 of ideas that not only were not in 
the minds of Count Nesselrode and James Buchanan when the treaty was negotiated, 
but which, under our Constitution and laws could not have been entertained for a 
moment by any President, Secretary of State, or diplomatic officer of the United 
States. 

Sporadic cases arising during the next 15 years gave our ministers to Russia and our 
Secretaries of State the opportunity to protest with indignation at the new and unwar- 
ranted interpretation put by Russia upon the terms of the treaty. But it was not until 
about 1880 that the question assumed a critical aspect. Russia's persistent and 
determined violation of the treaty from that time impelled James G. Blaine, while 
Secretary of State, to write his masterly dispatch of July 29, 1881, to which the Russian 
Government has never been able to make any effective reply. Secretary Blaine's 
presentation of the subject was so profound and comprehensive that his successors 
in office found but one point not touched upon, namely, the inquisition into the 
religious belief of American citizens bearing the passport of the United States, prac- 
ticed by the representatives of the Russan Government on American soil. This point 
was energetically pressed dm-ing the administrations of President Cleveland by Secre- 
taries Bayard and Olney and by our Minister to Russia, Cliftion R. Breckinridge. 
The Russian Government was informed in distinct terms that her practice of subjecting 
to a religious inquisition all American citizens bearing American passports and desiring 
to have those passports visaed, was one not to be tolerated by the genius of our institu- 
tions; that "the continuance in such a course, after our views had been clearly but 
considerately made known, may trench upon the just limits of consideration," and 
might lead to the withdrawal of the exequaturs of such consuls as continued this 
practice. 

19831—11 ^16 239 



240 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

The unanswerable presentation of the just and proper meaning of the treaty of 1832 
made by Mr. Blaine, and the additional point made under the administration of Presi- 
dent Cleveland in 1892 to 1896, were adhered to by all succeeding Secretaries of State 
without sign of deviation until 1905. 

In the meantime, between 1879 and 1909, one or other branch of the Congress of the 
United States, in resolutions and in reports of Committees, notably the report of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives presented on April 6, 
1892, clearly indicated that the protests of the Department of State voiced the senti- 
ments entertained by the adherents of all shades of public opinion in the United States. 

Following hard upon the death of Secretary of State John Hay, and the accession 
to office of Secretary of State Elihu Root, there ensued an apparent change of attitude 
toward this question by the Department of State, which was guided m its foreign 
negotiations by a Russophile policy — a condition which has not yet changed. In 
consequence, the i)assport question began to receive scant consideration, contrary 
to our national traditions, and in naarked contrast to the vigorous attitude maintained 
by the Department of State during the preceding 45 years through all changes of 
administration, irrespective of party. 

In pursuit of this determination to retire from the position maintained by his 
predecessors for nearly half a century, Mr. Secretary Root, on May 28, 1907, issued 
the folloAving circulars: 

CITIZENSHIP. 

Department of State, Washington, , 190-. 



Sir: The department is in receipt of an application for a passport of 



from which it appears that , born in . Your attention is invited 

to the inclosed notice to former subjects of Russia who contemplate returning to 
that country, from which you will perceive that it is a punishable offense under 
Russian law for a Russian subject to obtain naturalization in any other country with- 
out the consent of the Russian Government. While this Government dissents from 
this requirement, it can not encourage American citizens whom it is likely to affect 
to place themselves within the sphere of its operation. Upon receiving satisfactory 

information that not intend to go to Russian territory, or that 

permission from the Russian Government to return, the application for a 



passport will be reconsidered immediately. 
Returning the application, the certificate of naturalization, and the sum of $1 

( )' . 

I am, sir, your obedient servant. 

Chief, Bureau of Citizenship, 



Notice to American Citizens Formerly Subjects of Russia who Contemplate Return- 
ing to that Country. 

A Russian subject who becomes a citizen of another country without the consent of 
the Russian Government commits an offense against Russian law, for which he is 
liable to arrest and punishment, if he returns without previously obtaining the per- 
mission of the Russian Government. 

This Government dissents from this provision of Russian law, but an American 
citizen formerly a subject of Russia who returns to that country places himself within 
the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect immunity from its operations. 

Jews, whether they were formerly Russian subjects or not, are not admitted to 
Russia unless they obtain special permission in advance from the Russian Govern- 
ment, and this department will not issue passports to former Russian subjects or to 
Jews who intend going to Russian territory, unless it has assurance that the Russian 
Government will consent to their admission. 

No one is admitted to Russia without a passport, which must be visaed or indorsed 
by a Russian diplomatic or consular representative. 

Elihu Root. 

Department of State, Washington, May 28, 1907. 

It was not until six months after these circulars were issued that their existence 
became known. The astonishment at this discovery gave way to earnest remon- 



TERMINATIOISr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 241 

strance on the part of Louis Marshall, esq., and Edward Lauterbach, esq., on Febru- 
ary 1, 1908, acting for the American Jewish Committee, as follows: 

New York, February 1, 1908. 
Hon. Elihu Root, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: In a circular letter, dated May 28, 1907, issued by the Department of State 
over your signature, appears the following paragraph: 

"Jews, whether they were formerly Russian subjects or not, are not admitted to 
Russia unless they obtain special permission in advance from the Russian Govern- 
ment, and this department will not issue passports to former Russian subjects, or to 
Jews who intend going into Russian territory, unless it has assurance that the Russian 
Government will consent to their admission." 

The meaning of this announcement can not be misunderstood. It segregates from 
the mass of American citizens those of the Jewish faith, whether naturalized or native 
bom, and withholds from them one of the privileges of citizenship if they harbor the 
intention of visiting Russia without having first secured the consent of the Russian 
Government. All other citizens, of whatever race or creed, are assured an unlimited 
passport and are guaranteed the absolute protection of our flag. They encounter no 
discrimination at the hands of our Government. They are subjected to no humili- 
ation. They are not compelled to submit to any inquisitorial intrusion into their 
private purposes, nor are they forced to conform to any religious test. 

Under the plain implication of this regulation, however, an American citizen 
applying to the State Department for a passport, who is suspected of being a Jew, 
is for the first time in our history obliged to disclose his faith and must, if he be a 
Jew, satisfy the department that he does not intend to avail himself of the privilege 
of going to Russia, secured to him, in common with all of his fellow citizens, under 
the treaty solemnized between the United States and Russia in 1832. 

Hitherto Russia alone has violated that treaty openly and notoriously. Hitherto 
our Government has consistently remonstrated against such breach and against the 
practice of Russian officials of making examinations into the religious faith of Ameri- 
can citizens. Heretofore our State Department has declared to Russia again and 
again the principle formulated in the following terms by Mr. Adee, in his note to 
the legation of St. Petersburg on July 5, 1895: 

"The Russian Government can not expect that its course in asserting inquisitorial 
authority in the United States over citizens of the United States, as to their religious 
or civil status, can ever be acceptable or even tolerable to such a Government as 
ours, and continuance in such a coiurse after our views have been clearly and consid- 
■erately made known may trench upon the just limits of consideration." 

Now, however, there seems to have occurred a reversal of a time-honored policy 
and it is our Government that seeks to indulge in these inquisitorial practices ana 
to apply an unconstitutional religious test to upward of a million of our own citizens, 
not only naturalized but native born, thus practically justifying Russia in the viola- 
tion of her treaty obligations and condoning her contemptuous disregard of the Amer- 
ican passport. 

Believing that the promulgation to which your attention has been directed is the 
result of inadvertence, you are respectfully requested to reconsider the subject and 
to cause the circular letter to be withdrawn. 

Very truly, yoiirs, Louis Marshall. 

Edward Lauterbach. 

The matter was brought up in Congress by Representative Goldfogle on the 4th 
of the same month. In response to these criticisms, the offensive circular was with- 
drawn, and the following substituted: 

Notice to American Citizens Formerly Subjects of Russia who Contemplate Returning 

to that Country. 

Under Russian law a Russian subject who becomes a citizen of another country 
without the consent of the Russian Government is deemed to have committed an 
offense for which he is liable to arrest and punishment if he returns without previously 
obtaining the permission of the Russian Government. 

This Government dissents from this provision of Russian law, but an American 
citizen formerly a subject of Russia who returns to that country places himself -within 
the jurisdiction of Russian law and can not expect immunity from its operations. 

No one is admitted to Russia unless his passport has been visaed or indorsed by a 
Russian diplomatic or consular representative. 

Elihu Root. 

Department of State, 

Washington, January 25, 1908. 



242 TEEMIlSrATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

In communicating this action to Messrs. Marshall and I^auterbach, Mr. Secretary 
Root invited them to advise him if they saw anything objectionable in this circular. 
In response to this invitation they wrote the following: 

New York, February IS, 1908. 
Hon. Elihu Root, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: We are in receipt of yours of the 11th instant, inclosing a circular, 
bearing date January 25, 1908, issued by the Department of State as a substitute for 
the objectionable circular of May 28, 1907, which you inform us, to our great satis- 
faction, has been withdrawn. 

Availing ourselves of your courteous suggestion, that if we should see anything 
objectionable in the circular which is now in use you would be very glad to be advised 
of it, it occurs to us that the cautionary and humane objects of the circular would be 
fully subserved without at the same time militating against the historic policy of our 
Government, if the words "and can not expect immunity from its operations" were 
stricken from the second paragraph. 

You are, of course, thoroughly familiar with the provisions of chapter 249 of the 
act of July 27, 1868, which are embodied in sections 1999 to 2001 of the United States 
Revised Statutes, which we nevertheless deem it desirable to quote, in order to give 
point to our remarks in favor of the proposed amendment of the new circular. 

"Sec. 1999. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of 
all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government 
has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights 
of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their 
descendents, are subjects of foreign States, owing all allegiance to the governments 
thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim 
of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore any decla- 
ration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States 
which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation is declared 
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic. 

"Sec. 2000. All naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign countries, 
are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons 
and property which is accorded to native-born citizens. 

"Sec. 2001. Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the 
United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority 
of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand 
of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful 
and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith 
demand the release of such citizen and if the release so demanded is unreasonably 
delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, 
as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the 
facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be commimicated 
by the President to Congress." 

These sections proclaim to all the world the American doctrine of the right of 
expatriation; the right of all naturalized citizens of the United States while in foreign 
countries to receive from our Government the same protection which is accorded to 
native-bom citizens; the duty of the President to demand the release of any American 
citizen unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign gov- 
ernment, in violation of the rights of American citizenship as defined in these sec- 
tions, and they denounce any declaration, instruction, or opinion by any officer of the 
United States which questions the right of expatriation, as inconsistent with the funda- 
mental principles of our Government. 

Although the circular of January 25, 1908, announces that our Government dissents, 
from the Russian claim, which denies the right of expatriation, it nevertheless adds 
that an American citizen formerly a subject of Russia who returns to that country 
can not expect immunity from the operation of the Russianlaw. This, it seems to 
us, is a declaration which questions the right of expatriation and which restricts 
the scope and meaning of sections 2000 and 2001 of the United States Revised Statutes. 
These sections clearly declare that any interference by a foreign government with 
the liberty of a naturalized citizen, based on his exercise of the right of expatriation, 
imposes upon our Government the obligation of securing to such citizen_ immunity 
from the operations of the law of a foreign government, which is "inconsistent with 
the fundamental principles of the P^epublic." 

To declare that immunity can not be expected by an American citizen formerly a 
subject of Russia, under these circumstances, is a tacit recognition of the contention 
of the Russian Government, which is at war with our fundamental principles, and is 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 243 

an implied invitation to that Government not only to violate the rights of American 
citizenship but also to disregard the obligations of the treaty of 1832 solemnized 
between the United States and Russia. 

The least that our citizens can expect from our Government is, that it shall continue 
to assert the principles embodied in this statute, and that it shall not, directly or 
indirectly, give sanction to a contrary contention on the part of any foreign power, 
or relax to the slightest degree in the vigor of its assertion and protection of the rights 
of American citizenship as thus defined. 

Very truly, yours, Louis Marshall. 

Edward Lauterbach. 

This sharp but dignified presentation of the principles involved drew forth the 
announcement from Acting Secretary Bacon on February 18, 1908, that he had directed 
the objectionable words to be withdrawn and a new edition of the circular issued. 
(See American Jewish Year Book, 5669, p. 254.) 

In the meantime the executive committee of the American Jewish committee had 
under consideration for a long period the question of the best method of approaching 
this serious subject, and reached the determination that the methods of diplomacy 
thus far had failed. To the earnest, dignified, and forceful remonstrances of our 
Government, extending over nearly half a century, the Russian Government had 
replied first by begging the question, and then by resort to all its well-known methods 
of subterfuge and duplicity. 

Appreciating fully that the honor and dignity of the United States were at stake, 
the committee concluded that since the Russian Government could not be induced 
to change its attitude, there was no course left but to denounce existing treaties. 
The views of the committee were crystallized in the following letter addressed to 
President Roosevelt on May 18, 1908, by Judge Mayer Sulzberger, of Philadelphia, 
the president of the committee : 

New York, May 18, 1908. 

The President: I am directed by the American Jewish committee, of which I 
have the honor to be president, to present to you this communication and petition 
concerning a question of much importance to all citizens of the country, in which, 
however, Jewish citizens have an added and special interest. 

You are aware that for more than a quarter of a century the domestic policy of the 
Russian Empire has inflicted grievous hardships on its Jewish subjects. Whereas 
prior to the year 1881, there- were so few Russian Jews in "this country that the sight of 
one was a novelty, even to his coreligionists, in that year there began a steady immi- 
gration movement, which the most superficial observer at once recognized as being 
caused by pressure from within. 

By degrees the facts have gradually filtered through the dense mass of misrepre- 
sentation used to explain an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon. A body of 5,000,000 
pious believers had been so harried that the humility and patience inculcated by their 
religion, their traditions, and their antecedents, had among a small proportion of the 
younger generation given way to the gospel of despair, and this inevitable result was 
made the occasion, not for a return to saner and more humane methods of government, 
but for more cruel jjersecution. 

The consequence has been that hundreds of thousands of these Russian subjects 
have been driven to our shores. 

The outraged feelings of the people of the United States have been expressed in 
no uncertain tones, but the Government of Russia has refused the request of our 
Government even to receive a memorial on the subject. 

As conditions in the Russian Empire so far as its Jewish subjects are concerned 
are in nowise improved, we feel ourselves justified in suggesting a mode whereby 
the Government of that country may be induced to take up the whole question and 
give it serious consideration. 

The Russian Government seems unable to realize that Jewish citizens of this 
country are, under our Constitution, laws, treaties, and actual practice, the equals of 
all other citizens. It seems to cherish the idea that its hostility to its own Jewish 
subjects may be obtruded upon our Government as a policy to be imitated with 
reference to the Jewish citizens of our country. 

This idea seems fixed and probably can not be altered save by direct and emphatic 
measures. 

The power to take these measures is lodged by the Constitution in the Executive. 
He it is who may "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," make treaties. 

This power may now, we suggest, be eflftciently used. In the communication of 
the Secretary of State under date of February 11, 1908, to Messrs. Louis Marshall and 
Edward Lauterbach, the statement was made that ' ' the department has been endeavor- 



244" TEEMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

ing and is endeavoring to secure from Russia a naturalization treaty which, will prac- 
tically dispose of this difficulty." 

Governments, like individuals, must study actual conditions, if practical results 
are to be obtained. One condition that may not be ignored is the view of the Russian 
Government that it has the "right" unilaterally to annul a treaty in whole or in part. 
It exercised that "right" in 1870 (during the Franco-German War) by declaring itself 
no longer bound by that part of the Treaty of Paris (1856) which had reference to the 
Black Sea. And though the signatory powers at a conference declared that "it is an 
essential principle of the law of nations that no power can liberate itself from the 
engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent 
of the contracting powers by means of an amicable arrangement, ' ' yet the fact remains 
that Russia received as a concession the thing that had been declared to be wrong. 

The Government of Russia has exercised a similar "right" with reference to the 
first article of the treaty of commerce and navigation entered into between it and our 
Government in the year 1832. That treaty was intended to promote the freedom of 
commerce and navigation as respects the high contracting parties. The object is 
stated in full in the first article, which is as follows: 

"There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties, a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall 
mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each 
party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn 
and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, 
and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of 
the country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and 
ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning 
commerce." 

Since the ratification of this treaty, our Government has faithfully and uniformly 
adhered to and performed all the provisions thereof. The Government of Russia, on 
the other hand, has uniformly refused, in at least one respect, to conform to the pro- 
visions of the first article. It is well known to all familiar with the diplomatic history 
of the country that Jewish citizens of the United States, as well native as foreign born, 
have been subjected by Russian officials, on oiu own soil, to an inquisition concerning 
their religious faith or racial antecedents which is totally foreign to the spirit of our 
Government and to the tenor of its Constitution and laws. Moreover, after such 
inquisition made, the right guaranteed to citizens of the United States under the first 
article of the treaty of 1832 has been uniformly withheld. For reasons of public 
policy, the Government of the United States has, through many administrations, 
preserved an attitude of respectful protest against Russia's violation of the first article 
of this treaty, though on one occasion (Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 1072-1074) it was 
intimated to Russia that unless her consuls desisted from their inquisitorial practice 
with respect to our Jewish citizens we might feel constrained to withdraw their exe- 
quaturs. What adds to the irritation produced by Russia's treatment of om* citizens 
of the Jewish faith is the fact that has become known to us that it is in contrast with 
that accorded to Jewish citizens of the German Empire whose passports for Russia are 
freely viseed, and this principle extends also to the JeAvish agents of German Jewish 
merchants who desire to visit the Russian Empire on business. 

Moreover, we have learned of this new thing: That while a Jewish citizen of the 
United States taking passage on a Russian steamer from New York to Libau may now 
have his passport visaed without trouble by the Russian consul at New York, the 
ambassador's office at Washington distinctly refuses vise to Jewish applicants on the 
avowed ground of their Judaism. This remarkable disparity of conduct is explicable 
only on the theory that Russia's policy is to favor its own steamship traffic from the 
United States and to discourage that of other nations, including om- own. Ovir country 
is thus made an unwilling accomplice in the unfair treatment of citizens of countries 
with which we have treaties containing "the most favored nation" clause, and the 
best evidence is before us that in Russia's conduct there is involved no real principle 
except the'promotion of its shipping interests, without regard to human rights or 
treaty obligations. 

We beg to suggest that in the negotiation of a new treaty the first question to be 
seriously considered is whether a naturalization treaty will be thought useful by 
Russia. Its policy having been to declare its subjects incapable of throwing off 
their allegiance peaceably and lawfully, what guarantee can we have whether it has 
undergone a real and lasting change of opinion? And if it has not suffered such 
change, what reasonable prospect is there that the terms of such a treaty will be better 
observed than the terms of former treaties? 

Nations are subject to no effective coercion save the horrible pressure of war, which 
in 11 ordinary cases is inapplicable and ought to be reserved only for that last 



TERMINATION" OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 245 

extremity when duty, conscience, and the intei'ests of mankind unite to make it 
unavoidable and right. 

Keeping in mind the views held by the Russian Government, no doubt sincerely, 
in its interpretation of treaties that have become useless and injurious to its interests, 
we humbly suggest that with Russia no treaty bhould be made which does not contain 
articles of such a character that her own interest would urge grateful compliance 
with the obligations of the treaty. 

Of the treaties now in force between Russia and the United States there are but 
two which are of immediate concernment in this aspect. The first is the treaty of 
commerce and navigation of the year 1832, before alluded to, and the second is the 
extradition convention concluded March 28, 1887. The former is terminable at any 
time after a year's notice; the latter upon six months'. 

The treaty of 1887 gives to Russia advantages far greater than any we can enjoy 
under it. We do not believe that Russia would be sought as an asylum to any con- 
siderable extent by American criminals. On the other hand, in a country where 
murder seems to be established as a means of political persuasiveness, not only among 
sections of the population, but also in certain departments of the Government, the 
conditions are substantially different. Every asylum State constitutes a serious 
handicap to the efforts of the Russian Government in carr5dng out its domestic policy 
toward its freedom-loving subjects. Neither our traditions nor common humanity 
nor international comity can demand of us to maintain a sympathetic attitude toward 
Russian governmental policy in this respect. 

If, therefore, any new treaty is to be now negotiated, we ventm-e to suggest the 
propriety of incorporating into it the provisions of the treaties of 1832 and 1887 as 
well as those concerning other subjects which may be under discussion. And it would 
seem wise also, even if it should appear tautological, to insert the well-known principle 
of international law that "a treaty which has been broken by one of the parties to it 
is not binding upon the other through the fact itself of the breach and without any 
reference to any kind of tribunal." (Hall's International Law, 5th edition, p. 352.) 
As both the treaties of 1832 and 1887 can be made to expire on short notice, there is 
no practical difficulty in carryiiig out the suggestion. 

The commercial disadvantage to us of the expiry of the treaty of 1832 is not appalling. 
International trade, like all trade, is not in it§ bulk based on favoritism, but on mutual 
interest. We can not sell what Russia does not want, nor do we buy what we do not 
expect to use advantageously for ourselves. The laws of commerce will in the end 
prevail over mere fancies or momentary estrangements. 

But the promotion of commerce, though a high function of statesmanship, is not its 
exclusive duty. A point in international relations may be reached when a first-class 
power can better afford to lose a substantial advantage than tamely submit to the 
domination of a foreign power formidable for population and resources. Russia is 
such a first-class power. Its teeming millions will, one day, under an enlightened 
government, worthily represent the best results of civilization. Were it weak, we 
could afford still further patience and indulgence. 

But we also owe something to the dignity of our own country. Our Government, 
we fondly believe, is the greatest on earth with respect to freedom, equity, and justice. 
Other nations have their ideals, which we must view with respect, and, if possible, 
with sympathy. No nation can or ought to ask us to adopt its antithetical views and 
yield our own. And if a request so unreasonable be made, either in words or by a 
course of conduct, it is out duty energetically to refuse and repel it. 

Our prayer, therefore, is that due notice be given to Russia of the intended termina- 
tion of the two treaties aforesaid, and that no new treaty be made unless all the pro- 
visions covering both subjects, and such others as may be agreed upon, are contained 
in one instrument which shall likewise contain practical provisions to secure its 
enforcement by denying its further benefits to the party disregarding its obligations 
thereunder, or any of them. 

If our language in this paper be warmer than diplomatic usage would warrant, we 
beg you to remember that we are addressing the head of our own Government on a 
matter in which our sympathies are profoundly engaged, and are not unmindful of 
the difficulty of righting wrongs incrusted with age. 

Nevertheless, we devoutly hope and firmly believe that the_ Executive _ of the 
Nation will find a way to obtain what justice demands, by practically realizing the 
principle of the Constitution that treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, and 
that all citizens have an equal right to their benefits. 

We send herewith, as illustrative of one part of this paper, a copy of the Memoirs of 
Prince Urussov (Harper, New York, 1908). 

I have the honor to be, 

Your very humble servant, Mayer Sulzberger, 

President American Jewish Committee. 



246 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

To that letter the following reply was received . 

The White House, 

Washington, May 20, 1908. 
My Dear Sir: Your communication of the 18th instant has been received and 
called to the attention of the President, by whose direction it has been referred for 
the consideration of Secretary Root. 

Very truly, yours, Wm. Loeb, Jr., 

Secretary to the President, 
Mr. Mayer Sulzberger, 

856 Second Avenue, New York, N. Y. 

The reference to the Secretary of State of this calm and judicial presentation of the 
important issues involved, embodying the recommendation of a method by which 
the enormity of the abuse inflicted by the Russian Government on the whole body 
of American citizenship could be rectified, drew forth only the following letter: 

Department of State, 
Washington, June 4, 1908, 
Mr. Mayer Sulzberger, 

President American Jewish Committee, 

356 Second Avenue, New York City. 
Sir: The department has received, by reference from the President, your letter of 
May 18, presenting certain views of your committee and urging action on the part of 
this Government with reference to the attitude of the Russian Government toward 
people of the Jewish faith. The letter will receive attentive consideration. 

You state that you have heard that Jewish citizens of the United States taking 
passage on a Russian steamer from New York to Libau may now have their passports 
visaed by the Russian consul general at New York, but that the Russian Embassy at 
this Capital refuses to vis6 their passports. You are invited to furnish the department 
with a statement of the circumstances which support this statement. It is possible 
that the absence of the Russian ambassador, who sailed for Europe in April, may explain 
this rather singular difference between the two offices. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, Elihu Root. 

In response thereto a letter was sent to the Secretary of State by the president of 
the American Jewish committee, in which, as may be seen, the questions of the Secre- 
tary of State are fully answered, and the request of the American Jewish committee 
reiterated in the following terms: 

New York, June 17, 1908. 
Hon. Elihu Root, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: The American Jewish committee acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 
4, 1908, wherein you acknowledge receipt of our communication to the President, 
dated May 18, referred by him to you, and state that it will receive attentive con- 
sideration. 

You also invite us to furnish the department with a statement of the circumstances 
which support our allegation that while a Jewish citizen of the United States taking 
passage in a Russian steamer from New York to Libau may now have his passport 
visaed without trouble by the Russian consul at New York, the ambassador's office 
at Washington distinctly refuses the visa to Jewish applicants on the avowed ground 
of their Judaism. 

We assume that as to the latter portion of our statement no proof is necessary. 

The refusal of the Russian Government to perform its treaty obligations in this 
respect is established not only by the records of the State Department during the last 
40 years, but has on two occasions been referred to by the President of the United 
States in the annual message to Congress, first by President Arthur in 1883, and then 
by President Cleveland in 1895. 

Moreover, the platforms of both parties, in the national conventions of 1904, prom- 
ised a redress of this grievance. 

"We pledge ourselves," said the Republican platform, "to insist upon the just and 
equal protection of all our citizens abroad.". 

And the Democratic platform was equally expHcit: "We demand that all over the 
world a duly authenticated passport issued by the Government of the United States 
to an American citizen shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen and 
shall entitle him to the treatment due him as such." 

Nevertheless, in order to comply with your request we detail the circumstances of 
Mr. Louis J. Horowitz's case. 

Mr. Louis J. Horowitz came to this countiy at the age of 15, about 18 years ago, and 
is a citizen of the United States. He is the vice president of the Thompson-Starret 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 247 

Co., the corporation which built the great station of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. at 
Washington, D. C. During the past four years he has been actively connected with 
the said company and is now the virtual head of its business department. 

On March 30, 1908, being about to go to England on business, he determined to visit 
his birthplace in Russia, and at the same time to go to St. Petersburg for the purpose of 
investigating various matters connected with the proposed contract between the 
Russian Government and his company regarding the construction of a passenger 
depot. Having sailed for England on March 31, 1908, in a hurry, he requested the 
company's local manager at Washington to secure his passport and mail it to him. His 
representative learned that there were difficulties and therefore retained Messrs. 
Penfield & Penfield to attend to the securing and validating of the passport. 

On April 1, 1908, Judge Penfield presented the passport at the Russian Embassy at 
Washington, was asked whether Mr. Horowitz was a Jew, replied in the affirmative, 
and the vise was refused. 

In consequence of this refusal Mr. Horowitz returned home without visiting Russia. 

We do not think that the ambassador's subsequent departure for Russia is at all 
relevant. Nor would his previous departure have been. The embassy was, in Mr. 
Horowitz's case, consistently violating the treaty of 1832, as it had done for decades; 
certainly since 1866. 

The inquiry concerning the strange departure of the Russian consul at New York 
from the uniform practice concerning Jews seems to us equally irrelevant to the 
prayer of our petition. The circumstances are, however, interesting in another 
aspect. They show that the Russian Government, having gone into the business of 
carrying passengers from Libau to New York and from New York to Libau, purposes to 
make its commercial venture a success. A person who has bought his ticket to Libau 
will escape all inquisition as to his religion or race and will have his passport promptly 
visaed. Of course if he has not bought such a ticket the inquisition is put in force. 

The following are the facts in Bernstein's case: 

Mr. Herman Bernstein, a citizen of New York, desiring to visit Russia and aware of 
the uniform refusal of the Russian officials to vis6 American passports if the holder 
thereof happens to be a Jew, was advised that he would encounter no difficulty if he 
engaged passage in the Libau steamer, being part of the volunteer fleet belonging to 
the Russian Government. He accordingly purchased his ticket for Libau on the 
steamship St. Petersburg, and on May 13, 1908, went to the Russian consulate to have 
his passport visaed. On entering the consulate he was handed a paper and was asked 
by an official to fill it out. He wrote therein his name; the place of his birth — Scher- 
windt, Germany; his occupation — author and business representative. He was 
asked to state whether he was a citizen, which he answered in the affirmative. The 
line in which he was asked as to his religion, he left blank. A statement he was about 
to make was prevented by the official's declaration that he wanted the blanks filled, 
nothing more. The paper (with the religious blank unfilled) was handed to the 
official who asked: "Are you going on business or on a pleasure trip?" Bernstein 
answered that he was going as a business representative and was also interested in the 
emigration question, which he might describe. 

The official then took the blank and handed it to the vice consul, who kept it for 
about 10 minutes, then walked over to where Bernstein was, told him the fee was 
$1.20, and visaed the passport. 

We may be pardoned for calling attention to the fact that our Government has 
always faithfully performed its treaty obligations to Russia as to other States and that 
its insistence upon the rights of our citizens who hold its passport has always been 
clear and emphatic. Memorable correspondence on the subject of the protection 
afforded by our national passport not only with Russia, but with the Sublime Porte 
is on file in the Department of State. From this it will be seen that there have been 
places where and times when Christian citizens of our country were threatened with 
just such a denial of their rights as Jewish citizens are now subjected to. 

Our letter of May 18, to which we beg again to refer, suggested a lawful, peaceful, 
regular, practical, and practicable way by which Russia may be persuaded of the 
impolicy of continuing its unfriendly conduct. Such a course we think our Govern- 
ment ought to pursue, promptly and without allowing itself to be diverted from the 
consideration of the great and fundamental question to the discussion of side issues. 

We can only repeat our original prayer that due notice be given to Russia of the 
intended termination of the treaties of 1832 and 1887, and that no new treaty be made 
unless all the provisions covering both subjects and such others as may be agreed on 
are contained in one instrument which shall likewise contain practical provisions to 
secure its enforcement by denying its further benefits to the party disregarding its 
obligations thereunder or any of them. 

I have the honor to be. 

Your very humble servant, Mayer Sulzberger, 

President American Jewish Committee. 



248 TEEMIFATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

Inasmuch as the first communication had been originally addressed to the President, 
it was deemed proper to send a copy of this letter of Jime 17 to the President, which 
was done, with the following letter of transmittal: 

New York, June 30, 1908. 

The President: By direction of the American Jewish Committee I had the honor 
to address a letter to the President on May 18, 1908, protesting against the continued 
violation by the Eussian Government of the treaty of 1832 in refusing to permit Jewish 
citizens of the United States the right to visit Russia and transact their business there, 
and suggesting a method by which the Russian Government might be induced to 
change its course of action. 

This letter being referred to the Secretary of State was acknowledged by him in a 
letter calling for further information. 

The information called for was duly given in my reply of June 17, 1908, a copy of 
which I inclose for your information. 

The original mandate of the committee directing me to present the matter to the 
President himself applies, as I conceive, to the further correspondence, and for that rea- 
son I have deemed it my duty to send this communication. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Mayer Sulzberger, 
President American Jewish Committee. 

No further response was received from the Department of State or President Roose- 
velt to indicate that the matter was receiving due and proper consideration. 

But on June 19, 1908, the following plank was adopted by the Republican National 
Convention: 

"We commend the vigorous efforts made by the administration to protect Ameri- 
can citizens in foreign lands, and pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and equal 
protection of all our citizens abroad. It is the unquestioned duty of the Government 
to procure for all our citizens, without distinction, the rights of travel and sojourn in 
friendly countries, and we declare ourselves in favor of all proper efforts tending to 
that end." 

On July 4, the Democratic Party in its platform defined its position thus: 

"We pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and lawful protection of our citizens 
at home and abroad, and to use all proper methods to secure for them, whether native- 
born or naturalized, and without distinction of race or creed, the equal protection of 
law and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them under our treaty; 
and if, under existing treaties, the right of travel and sojourn is denied to American 
citizens, or recognition is withheld from American passports by any countries on the 
ground of race or creed, we favor prompt negotiations with the Governments of such 
countries to secure the removal of these unjust discriminations. We demand that 
all over the world a duly authorized passport issued by the Government of the United 
States to an American citizens shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen 
and shall entitle him to the treatment due him as such." 

And on July 28 the Independence Party made the following declaration: 

"American citizens abroad, whether native-born or naturalized, and of whatever 
race or creed, must be secured in the enjoyment of all rights and privileges under 
our treaties, and wherever such rights are withheld by any country on the ground of 
race or religious faith, steps should be taken to secure the removal of such unjust dis- 
crimination." 

Thus, practically the whole body of American citizenship expressed itself upon the 
question in not uncertain terms. 

On July 17, 1908, the following letter was addressed to the Hon. William H. Taft, 
who had been nominated a month before as the candidate of the Republican Party 
for the Presidency: 

New York, July 17, 1908. 

Dear Sir: You are doubtless aware that for some decades the Russian Govern- 
ment has refused to permit Jewish citizens of the United States to enjoy the rights 
guaranteed to all citizens by the treaty of 1832, and that all representations hitherto 
made by our Government have been fruitless. 

The American Jewish committee directed me some months ago to address the 
President on the subject, and the communication was referred to the Secretary of 
State, with whom there was some further correspondence. 

The platforms of both parties of 1904 and 1908 contain declarations on the subject. 

The conduct of Russia in flouting the passport of the United States is naturally 
resented by the people more immediately concerned, though, when the matter is 
studied, the grievance to the whole Nation seems equally great. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 249 

The committae feels that a more specific declaration of the eamestnes * of our Gov- 
ernment in pressing for redress would probably effect that which mere diplomatic 
writing has hitherto failed in. 

I inclose a copy of the correspondence above referred to and beg to suggest that a 
declaration on the subject by you in yoiur letter of acceptance would be of great 
advantage to the cause. 

While I have not the presumption to suppose that the declaration, if you conclude 
that it ought to be made, will be prepared by anybody but yoiu-self, I trust that you 
will forgive the suggestion that the inclosed memorandum contains an idea which 
we would like you to consider when studying the subject. 
i am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Mayer Sulzberger, 
President American Jewish Committee. 
Hon. William Howard Taft, 

The Hermitage, Hot Springs, Va. 

[Memorandum accompanying letter to Mr. William H. Taft, July 17, 1908.J 

Our Government has borne from one or more foreign states the disregard of the rights 
of some of oxlt citizens guaranteed them by international law or by specific treaties 
in the belief that patience and magnanimity are the most potent means of procuring 
international justice. When these fail, it would seem timely to give notice of the 
termination of treaties thus violated or to modify diplomatic relations with ofiending 
governments. 

To that letter the following reply was received : 

Hot Springs, Va., July 22, 1908. 
My Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 17th of July, together 
with the inclosure which you sent, which I shall read with interest. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

William H. Taft. 
Mayer Sulzberger, Esq., 

SS6 Second Avenue, Neiv York, N. Y. 

Within a week Mr. Taft made the following statement in his letter of acceptance: 
"The position which our country has won under Republican administrations before 
the world should inure to the benefit of everyone, even the humblest of those entitled 
to look to the American flag for protection, without regard to race, creed, or color, 
and whether he is a citizen of the United States or of any of our dependencies. In 
some countries with which we are on friendly terms, distinctions are made in respect 
to the treatment of oiu* citizens traveling abroad and having passports of our executive, 
based on considerations that are repugnant to the principles of our Government and 
civilization. The Republican Party and administration will continue to make every 
proper endeavor to secure the abolition of such distinctions, which in our eyes are 
both n'eedless and opprobious." 

Following the reference to the passport question in his letter of acceptance, Mr. Taft, 
on August 11, 1908, wrote as follows to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff : 

Hot Springs, Va., August 11, 1908. 
My Dear Mr. Schipf: I have your kind letter of August 3, and thank you for your 
congratulations upon my speech of acceptance. You can count on my giving special 
attention to the passport business should I be intrusted with the mandate of power. 
******* 

Very sincerely, yours, Wm. H. Taft. 

Jacob H. Schiff, Esq., 

William and Pine Streets, New York, N. Y. 

The next step in relation to the passport question was the letter sent on October 19, 
1908, to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff by Secretary of State Root, in which the follow- 
ing appeared: 

"The other matter relates to securing from the Russian Government equality of 
treatment of all American citizens who seek to enter Russia with passports, without 
regard to their creed or origin. 

"Our Government has never varied in its insistence upon such treatment, and this 
administration has repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the Russian 
Government and urged the making of a new treaty for the purpose of regulating the 
subject. 



250 TEEMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

"We have but recently received an unfavorable reply to this proposal, and we 
have now comnaunicated to Russia an expression of the desire of this Government for 
a complete revision and amendment of the treaty of 1832, which provides for reciprocal 
rights of residence and travel on the part of the citizens of the two countries. We 
have expressed our views that such a coiu-se would be preferable to the complete 
termination of the treaty, subjecting both countries to the possibility of being left 
without any reciprocal rights whatever owing to the delay in the making of a new 
treaty. 

"The course which the administration is following in this respect is the one which 
appears to us to be best calculated to attain the end desired, an end as to which I beg 
to assure you the administration is in full and sympathetic agreement with you." 

This letter was by request given out to the newspapers and widely circulated 
throughout the United States. 

A week later, in a speech at Brooklyn, New York, Mr. Taft expressed himself as fol- 
lows: 

"No American passport should be subject to investigation beyond the certificate 
itself as to citizenship. I wish to say that nothing will appeal to me if I am elected 
more than the duty of devising ways and means to make an American passport cover 
«very American citizen the world over. But you must not misunderstand me. I 
promise to use every effort on my part. How far I can succeed depends upon the 
future. Every effort is being made now, and what I desire to emphasize is the sincerity 
of the promise in the Republican platform." 

Two weeks later, in a speech at Thalia Theater, New York, he pronounced his attitude 
as follows: 

"But that national prestige must be used not only for the benefit of the world at 
large, but for the benefit of our own citizenship, and therefore as we gain in inter- 
national prestige we ought to assert owe insistence that our passports certifying our citi- 
zenship should secure to every man, without regard to creed or race, the same treat- 
ment, the same equality of opportunity, in every nation on the globe. Now, this is 
not a matter with respect to which promises of immediate accomplishment can be 
made, but of this you can be certain — that if you commend the administration of Theo- 
dore Roosevelt by electing a Republican administration to succeed his, that adminis- 
tration will continue to press that question until the certificate contained in an Ameri- 
can passport shall have the effect that it ought to have." 

With the exception of the resolution introduced in Congress by Representative 
Henry M. Goldfogle on January 18, 1909 (see American Jewish Year Book, 5670, pp. 
37-38), which was emasculated by the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the instance 
of Secretary of State Root, as shown by the report of February 15 of the same year 
(ibid., 38-39), nothing was done either by the President or Congress. 

But great hopes were entertained of energetic action by the administration of Presi- 
dent Taft, because of his expressed views, and of the following pronouncement in his 
inaugural address on March 4, 1909: 

"The policy of the United States in the Spanish War, and since, has given it a posi- 
tion of influence among the nations that it never had before, and should be constantly 
exerted to securing to its bona fide citizens, whether native or naturalized, respect for 
them as such in foreign countries. We should make every effort to prevent humiliat- 
ing and degrading prohibition against any of our citizens wishing temporarily to sojourn 
in foreign countries because of race or religion." 

Thus far our hopes have not been realized. 

The first indication that but little attention had been paid to the proposals of the 
American Jewish committee, as contained in their letters of May 18 and June 17, 1908, 
given above, came on May 6, 1909, when, at the instance of the new administration, 
the Senate ratified and made public an agreement between our country and Russia, 
concluded and signed at St. Petersburg on June 25-12, 1904, to regulate the position 
of corporations or stock companies and other commercial associations, industrial or 
financial. This was the only agreement of any consequence entered into between the 
United States and Russia in 22 years — the period during which the passport contro- 
versy was at its height. Remonstrances, therefore, to the proclamation of this treaty 
by the President wc "3 dispatched in the following terms on May 11, 1909: 

1303 GiRARD Avenue, 

Philadelphia, May 11, 1909. 
. The Secretary of State. The American Jewish committee has just learned that 
on May 6, 1909, the Senate ratified and made public an agreement between oxu* coun- 
try and Russia, concluded and signed at St. Petersburg on June 25-12, 1904, to regu- 
late the position of corporations or stock companies and other commercial associations, 
industrial or financial. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 251 

Presumably nothing is now needed to give this agreement full effect save its pro- 
mulgation by the President. 

The committee, as will appear from correspondence on file in your department^ 
is vitally interested in our treaty relations with Russia, because of the latter's refusal 
to recognize that the treaties made by our country are intended to assure to Jewish 
citizens equal rights with other citizens. In point of fact Russia has steadily refused 
to accord such rights to Jewish citizens of the United States. 

The committee has entertained the hope that the endeavor of our Government to 
make new treaty arrangements whereby Russia will change its attitude might prove 
successful. It fears, however, that the promulgation of this agreement of 1904 would 
tend rather to defeat than to promote these endeavors. 

According to Russian view, the benefits of the new agreement would be practically 
denied to American citizens of the Jewish faith, because corporations, stock companies, 
and other commercial associations can only work by means of individuals; indeed, 
in the last analysis, are merely individuals, who, if they happen to be Jews, may be 
held by the Russian authorities to be persons subject to exceptional and derogatory 
treatment and to denial of rights. 

Should the Government of Russia take such a stand, the present difficulties, how- 
ever great, will be enhanced. Its position would be strengthened and it might prefer 
to adhere to its old-time prejudiced policy. 

If in the end our Government, to preserve its dignity and the rights of its citizens, 
should be compelled to denounce all the treaties subsisting between the two contries, 
such denunciation would necessarily comprehend the agreement of 1904, just ratified. 

The committee hopes that the suggestions herein advanced may be duly consid- 
ered before the final promulgation of the agreement in question by the President. 

For the American Jewish Committee: 

Mayer Sxjlzberger, President. 

To this, the following response was received : 

Washington, May 18, 1909. 
Mr. Mayer Sulzberger, 

President of the American Jewish Committee, 

1303 Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant in which 
you present the views of your committee respecting the action of the United States 
Senate in approving the agreement between the United States and Russia of June 
25-12, 1904, relating to corporations, etc. 

In reply I have to say that careful consideration will be given to your communi- 
cation. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Huntington Wilson, Acting Secretary. 

The careful consideration promised in Acting Secretary Huntington Wilson's letter 
was shown by the proclamation of the agreement on June 15, 1909, without granting 
the American Jewish committee a further opportunity to present its views. 

The salient parts of this agreement are as follows: 

"1. Corporations or stock companies, and other industrial or financial commercial 
organizations, domiciled in one of the two countries, and on the condition that they 
have been regularly organized in conformity to the laws in force in that country, 
shall be recognized as having a legal existence in the other country, and shall have 
therein especially the right to appear before the courts, whether for the purpose of 
bringing an action or defending themselves against one. 

"2. In all cases the said corporations and companies shall enjoy in the other coun- 
try the same rights which are or may be granted to similar companies of other countries. 

"3. It is understood that the foregoing stipulation or agreement has no bearing 
upon the question whether a society or corporation organized in one of the two cotm- 
tnes will or will not be permitted to transact its business or industry in the other, 
this permission remaining always subject to the regulations in this respect existing 
in the latter country." 

The importance of this agreement is emphasized at this point because one of the 
pleas advanced at all times by those in high position against the abrogation of the 
treaty of 1832 is that such action would interfere with the great industrial and financial 
interests which a few Americans have established in Russia. A perusal of the pro- 
visions of this agreement demonstrates that it amply safeguards all those interests, 
which occasion so much concern, so far as any agreement with a govermnent like 
Russia may accomplish this. While Russia can not be expected to respect this new 
agreement with any better faith than she shows to the provisions of the treaty of 1832, 
yet since in this case it is apparently in her interest to do so it may reasonably be 
expected that no flagrant violation will occur in the immediate future. 



252 TEEMINATIOISr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. . , 

The American Jewish committee, though greatly disappointed at the proclamation 
of this agreement, felt encouraged to hope for better things, because on June 1, 1909, 
announcement had been made that the experienced diplomat, Mr. W. W. Rockhill, 
then minister to China and previously an Assistant Secretary of State, had been ap- 
pointed ambassador to Russia. Advantage was taken of his presence in this country to 
arrange a conference with him, the President, and the Secretary of State, in August of 
that year. At this conference the American Jewish committee was represented by Judge 
Mayer Sulzberger and Dr. Cyrus Adler, and the whole passport situation was pre- 
sented to Mr. Rockhill in all its various phases, and the desires of the committee with 
respect to the termination of the treaty were enlarged upon. Assiuances were given 
by President Taft that Mr. Rockhill would be instructed to do everything possible to 
settle this vexatious question. 

The attitude of our Government toward Russia, in spite of the fact that that Govern- 
ment has persisted in the violation of the fundamental terms of the treaty of 1832, was 
shown further in the hasty granting to Russia on January 18, 1910, of the minimum 
tariff rates under the provisions of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act. That this course 
should be adopted in disregard of the remonstrances of the American Jewish committee, 
on file in the Department of State, occasioned grave misgivings among the members of 
the committe as to whether its communications were in fact receiving consideration. 

Nevertheless, since Mr. Rockhill did not reach St. Petersburg until late in the 
summer of 1909, the American Jewish committee felt that justice to the new adminis- 
tration required that it be given abundant time to demonstrate its earnestness and its 
ability to deal with the question before the committee should institute further action. 
Hence it was not until February 24, 1910, that the committee again addressed the 
President. On that date the following letter, signed, as will be seen, by the entire 
executive committee of the American Jewish committee, was transmitted: 

New York, February 24, 1910. 

The President: On May 18, 1908, the American Jewish committee, through its 
President, addressed President Roosevelt with regard to the persistent violation by 
Russia of its treaty obligations to this country, in so far as the rights of Jewish citizens 
traveling or wishing to travel in Russia are concerned. 

The communication was referred to the Secretary of State, and while we are not 
informed that the negotiations with Russia have been concluded, we understand that 
they are being carried on with some hope of success. 

In the meanwhile we have learned that Germany, Austria, and France have all 
obtained concessions from Russia, which, though they do not cover the points for 
which we contend, at least assure to their Jewish citizens rights which are denied to 
citizens of our own country. The significance of the fact seems to be that when Russia 
believes it for her interest to abandon the strictness of her policy, she does not hesitate 
to do so. 

The treaty with the German Empire, originally negotiated in 1874, was supple- 
mented in 1894, in 1897, and 1904; the treaty with Austria was put in force in 1906, 
and the treaty with France, originally concluded in 1874, was modified in 1906. 

We append copies of the text and translation of these several treaties so far as they 
concern the subject in controversy. An examination of them shows that these States 
have all insisted on a clause specifically protecting Jews against the pretended power 
of Russia to interpret a treaty by its domestic ordinances. The German treaty 
expressly protects persons "of the Mosaic religion" — "Israelites." The Austrian 
does the same, while the French forbids any distinction by reason of the religion of the 
parties. 

According to our information, these concessions were obtained from Russia in con- 
nection with the exercise by those Governments of their power over minimum tariffs. 
It is pertinent to mention here that the ratification of these treaties by Russia has not 
resulted in her cheerful compliance therewith. We refer to an interesting debate in 
the French Chambers on December 27, 1909, wherein the grievances of the French 
Jews on this head were sharply resented. 

We are, as ever, firmly convinced that American Jews will not enjoy equal rights 
under Russian treaties until Russian interests shall coincide with Russia's good faith, 
and that this contingency will not happen until all present treaties shall have been 
abrogated and one new treaty be made which shall cover all our relations of every 
nature with that Empire, a treaty whose disregard by one of the parties thereto shall 
instantly entitle the other to declare it at an end. 

We do not wish to enlarge, because our views appear at length in owe letter to Presi- 
dent Roosevelt of May 18, 1908, a copy of which is sent herewith. We also send copies 
of the treaties referred to (so far as they concern the subject under discussion), as also 
a report of the debate in the French Chambers above alluded to. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 253 

In conclusion we wish to urge that the removal of the disability complained of con- 
cerns all American citizens, since while it remains it is humiliating to our national 
dignity. 

We earnestly request that you grant us an interview at which we may personally 
present our views. If you could name any day prior to March 15 (except Fridays, 
Saturdays, and Sundays), we shall deem it an honor to wait upon you. 
We have the honor to be, 

Your very humble servants. 

The Executive Committee of the American Jewish Committee; Julian W. 
Mack, Chicago, vice president; Jacob H. Hollander, Baltimore, vice 
president; Isaac W. Bernheim, Louisville, treasurer; Cyrus Adler, 
Philadelphia, Pa.; Harry Cutler, Providence, R. I.; Samuel Dorf, 
New York, N. Y.; J; L. Magnes, New York, N. Y.; Louis Marshall 
New York, N. Y.; Julius Rosenwald, Chicago, 111.; Jacob H. Schiff, 
New York, N. Y.; Isador Sobel, Erie, Pa.; Cyrus L. Sulzberger, New 
York, N. Y.; Mayer Sulzberger, president. 

Appended: 1. Copy of the committee's letter to President Roosevelt; 2. Excerpts 
from Russian treaty with Germany (1904); 3. Excerpts from Russian treaty with Aus- 
tria (1906); 4. Excerpts from Russian treaty with France (1906); 5. Report of Debate 
in French Chambers, December 27, 1909. (See pp. 259-266, following.) 

To this the following response was received from the secretary to the President: 

The White House, 
Washington, February 26, 1910. 
My Dear Sir: The President has received your letter of February 24, with inclo- 
sures, in regard to the protection of Jewish citizens of the United States traveling in 
Russia and has referred all the papers to the Secretary of State. As soon as he hears 
from Secretary Knox the President will be glad to fix a time for an interview with 
your committee, as you suggest. 

Very truly, yours, Fred. W. Carpenter, 

Secretary to the President. 
Mr, Mayer Sulzberger, 

President American Jewish Committee, 356 Second Avenue, New York. 

On March 10, President Taft transmitted the following letter of Secretary of State 
Knox: 

Department of State, 
Washington, March 8, 1910. 

My Dear Mr. President: I have received Mr. Carpenter's letter of the 26th 
ultimo inclosing a communication addressed to you by the president of the American 
Jewish committee relative to the alleged violation by Russia of her treaty obligations 
in the treatment of American citizens of the Hebrew race who may desire to enter and 
sojourn in Russia. 

Mr. Sulzberger refers to the treaties concluded by Russia with Germany, France, 
andAustria, and states that "though they do not cover the points for which we contend, 
at least (they) assure to their Jewish citizens rights which are denied to citizens of 
our own country." 

It is true that Germany, France, and Austria have concluded with Russia arrange- 
ments permitting the entry and sojourn in Russia of Jewish commercial travelers, 
citizens of those countries. The treaties provide in brief that such commercial travel- 
ers may enter Russia after their passports are viseed by the nearest Russian consular 
officer and that they may remain for a period of six months. Their sojoiirn may also 
be extended for a fvu'ther period of six months upon application to the proper Russian 
bureau and the payment of certain prescribed fees. It will be noted, however, that 
in the agi'eement of 1874 with Germany the following proviso occurs: 

"It is mutually understood, however, that the above agreement shall not in any 
way interfere with the special laws, decrees, and ordinances, with respect to com- 
merce, trade, and police, which are in force or may be enacted in the country of either 
of the contracting parties, and are equally applicable to all foreigners." 

The department has been careful to ascertain from the American diplomatic officers 
at St. Petersburg that exactly the same treatment is accorded by Russia to American 
Jewish commercial travelers as is granted to Jewish commercial travelers who may be 
citizens or subjects of the countries mentioned above. Moreover, under the provisions 
of Articles I and XI of the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia, 
American citizens are entitled to enter, sojourn, and reside in Russia with "the same 
security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of 
their submitting to the laws and regulations in force concerning commerce." The 



254 TEKMINATIOISr OP THE TREATY OP 1832. 

embassy at St. Petersburg also reports that under the most-favored clause of Article X 
the Russian Government accords to American Jewish commercial travelers exactly 
the same treatment as is accorded to those of France, Germany, and Austria. 

I quote for your information Articles I and XI of the treaty of 1832 with Russia: 

"Article T. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a 
reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective 
States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territo- 
ries of each party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty 
to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend tO' 
their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as 
natives of the country wherein they reside on condition of their submitting to the 
laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force con- 
cerning commerce. 

"Art. XI. If either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular 
favor in navigation or commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other 
party freely where it is freely granted to such nation, or on yielding the same com- 
pensation when the grant is conditional." 

I may add that the department does not recall that there has been presented to it or 
to the American embassy at St. Petersburg a specific case showing that discrimination 
has been made by the Russian authorities in the treatment of American Jewish citissena 
as compared with that accorded to Jewish citizens of other countriss. Should such a 
case arise the department would immediately take the matter iip with the Russian 
Government. 

With reference to Mr. Sulzberger's suggestion that all treaties with Russia be abro- 
gated and a new one concluded which shall cover all relations of every nature with 
that Empire, I beg to say that some months ago this department suggested to the 
Russian foreign office the advisability of revising the treaty of 1832 and is still in 
correspondence with the embassy at St. Petersburg on the subject. 

I return herewith the papers transmitted with Mr. Carpenter's letter, and am, my 
dear Mr. President, 

Yours, very sincerely, P. C. Knox. 

This letter demonstrated an unwillingness on the part of Secretary of State Knox 
to deal with the question on the lines of the precedents established by all the Secre- 
taries of State who had held office during the preceding 45 years. It showed further his 
disinclination to treat the subject from the point of view of the insult to American 
citizenship involved, and convinced the members of the American Jewish Committee 
that results in accordance with their views were far from attainment. A letter drafted 
in reply to the Secretary's was not transmitted, as no effective results were to be 
expected so long as the attitude of the Secretary of State remains unaltered. 

Shortly thereafter Judge Mayer Sulzberger and Mr. Jacob H. Schiff had occasion 
to interview the President on other business. The President introduced the pass- 
port question, when the unchanged position of the American Jewish committee 
was stated anew, and as Ambassador Rockhill was expected to return to this country 
in May a conference between the President, the Secretary of State, Mr. Rockhill, 
Judge Mayer Sulzberger, Mr. Jacob H. Schiff, and Dr. Cyrus Adler was arranged, 
and took place on May 25, 1910. The matter was presented at large by the com- 
mittee's spokesmen, who were heard with attention, their understanding at the close 
being that the Cabinet would soon take up the question. On June 3 following a 
memorandum of the interview, with accompanying letter, was transmitted to the 
President, as follows: 

New York, June S, 1910. 

The President: The undersigned beg leave to submit herewith a memorandum ^ 
of the remarks concerning the American passport in Russia made by the parties to 
the interview of Wednesday, May 25, 1910, which the President was good enough 
to grant. Since this interview there has been held a meeting of the executive com- 
mittee of the American Jewish committee, the members of which are Jacob H. 
Schiff, Louis Marshall, Cyrus L. Sulzberger, Judah L. Magnes, and Samuel Dorf, 
of New York; Mayer Sulzberger and Cyrus Adler, of Philadelphia; Julian W. Mack 
and Julius Rosenwald, of Chicago; Isaac W. Bernheim, of Louisville, Ky.; Harry 
Cutler, of Providence, R. I.; Isador Sobel, of Erie, Pa.; and Jacob H. Hollander, of 
Baltimore, Md. As in duty bound, we presented a report of the interview and the 
executive committee unanimously approved the recommendations we had the 
honor to make, namely, that as a preliminary step our Government should insist 
upon the transfer of the negotiations from St. Petersburg to Washington, and that 



1 The memorandum is not printed, as it is a uniform practice not to publish conversations had with 
the President. 



TERMINATION OP THE TEEATY OP 1832. 255 

failure either in accomplishing this or in achieving desired results therefrom should 
be followed by denunciation of treaties. The committee strongly recommends that 
all this should be done promptly as a vindication of earnestness on a subject which 
found a place not only in the platform of the Republican party, but of all other par- 
ties that presented candidates to the American people at the last election. This 
fact indicates that the subject is one not only of interest to the particular class of 
citizens involved, but that all the citizens of the United States of every party affilia- 
tion are concerned as a matter of national honor in the full recognition of the Ameri- 
can passport and resent the assumption of a right on the part of the embassy or con- 
suls of any foreign power to make inquisition into the religious affiliations of Ameri- 
can citizens and practice discriminations as a result of such inquisition. 

It is the view of the committee, as indeed it has been maintained for many yeara 
by our Department of State, that this action is in violation of our treaties with Russia 
and of our own national policj^, and that the reasons given by the Russian Government 
of "economic necessity" or "internal policy" are mere pretexts on the part of Russia 
for violating' a treaty that it suits her better not to observe. We hold that our Govern- 
ment owes It to itself as a vindication of its reputation for intelligence to insist that as 
treaties are international agreements entered into by responsible parties, all considera- 
tions of economic values and internal policies are presumed to have been weighed by 
each party before the promulgation of the treaties, and that so soon as the treaties are 
promulgated unilateral action is barred and no change can be made either in the word- 
ing or meaning save by the consent of both parties. We believe that the time has 
arrived to demonstrate the position of the United States, not by war nor by threats or 
hints of war, but by the most solemn national protest — denunciation of treaties — should 
our righteous demands not be granted. 

We also urge that a measure so vital to the United States should not be delayed or 
rejected because European nations may — possibly for reasons which affect their politi- 
cal relations with Russia — not wish to join us for the present. We believe, more- 
over, that it would be more in accordance with American policy that our Government 
should proceed upon its own initiative and upon the basis of its own treaties without 
seeking either the concurrence or assistance of European powers. If our Government 
after pursuing a proper policy should still fail to induce Russia to take the right and 
just course, it would have the glorious record of high moral endeavor. There are 
reasons, however, which warrant the conclusion that so soon as Russia realizes that 
our Government is in earnest not only in registering its views, but in following them 
up by successive steps, and that its efforts are not merely for popular consumption, 
Russia's attitude will change. We believe that the removal of the negotiations to 
Washington would be the most important factor in hastening such a realization. That 
such removal is not without precedent we are well advised. But even it it were, the 
attempt to create the precedent would be all the more important and all the more likely 
to produce a favorable issue to the negotiations. In the modern world, wherein 
there is a growing international conscience, the demonstration of national injustice or 
national bad faith is a powerful lever. Even Russia needs the support of a world 
opinion and in some measures realizes the fact. 

We stand prepared, should the President wish it, to demonstrate that we are pre- 
senting to the President views which have been held by our Government and from 
time to time presented to the Russian Government, without avail, for a period of 
40 years; that we are making no new proposal, but pointing out as we believe the 
way which may prove effective for our Government to secure a successful result to 
negotiations which have hitherto failed. Deeply as we deplore the inhuman conduct 
of the Russian Government toward the Jews living in that Empire, and believing fully 
as we do that in view of the enforced migration to America resulting from this policy, 
our Government would be justified in protesting to Russia in its own behalf and in 
behalf of humanity, we nevertheless and with great effort suppress our natural senti- 
ments upon this point and confine ourselves solely to urging upon the President the 
securing of rights accorded us under our Constitution and laws and by the treaties 
which our own country has entered into. We urge that in the negotiations, which we 
hope will shortly be transferred to Washington, our Government confine itself to 
securing all rights accorded to its citizens under its treaties with Russia and that it 
hold the Russian Government to the same points of discussion, thus avoiding any 
claim that the internal policy of another Government is involved. 
We have the honor to be, Mr. President, 
[ Your most obedient servants, 

Mayer Sulzberger. 

Jacob H. Schtpp. 

Cyrus Adler. 

19831—11 ^17 



256 TEEMINATIOIsr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Mr. Rockhill retm-ned to his post, and though repeated interviews were had with 
the President by various members of the American Jewish committee, no communi- 
cation was received indicating that the administration had taken any of the action 
suggested in the letters of the committee and in the conferences had with President 
Taf t. The committee waited patientlj^ for favorable action until it reluctantly reached 
the conclusion that the only hope lay in an appeal to the people of the United States. 

Following this determination, ]\ir. Louis Marshall, a member of the executive coni- 
mittee of the American Jewish committee, upon the invitation of the Union of Ameri- 
can Hebrew Congregations at its twenty-second council, on January 19, 1911, delivered 
an address on "Russia and the American Passport." (See Appendix II.) Imme- 
diately after its delivery the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the 
Council of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and was presented to Presi- 
dent Taft on January 27, 1911, by Bernhard Bettmann, of Cincinnati: 

"For more than a generation passports issued by our Government to American 
citizens have been openly and continually disregarded and discredited by Russia 
in violation of its treaty obligations and the usage of civilized nations. 

"During all that time administration after administration, irrespective of party, 
has protested against this insult and humiliation, and Congress has on repeated 
occasions given emi)hatic expression to its resentment of the stain imposed upon our 
national honor. Diplomacy has exhausted itself in ineffectual effort to bring relief, 
for which a new generation is impatiently waiting. 

"The citizenship of every American who loves his country has in consequence 
been subjected to degradation, and it has become a matter of such serious import to the 
people of the United States, as an entirety, that this condition can no longer be toler- 
ated: Be it therefore 

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this council, speaking not as a representative of 
Jews, but as a body of citizens having at heart the preservation of the honor of the 
Nation, joining in generous emulation with ail other citizens to elevate its moral and 
political standards and to stimulate an abiding consciousness of its ideal mission 
among the nations of the earth, that the President of the United States, the Depart- 
ment of State, and Congress be respectfully and earnestly urged to take immediate 
measures, in conformity with the express terms of the treaties now existing between 
the United States and Russia, and in accordance with the law of nations, to terminate 
such treaties, to the end that if treaty relations are to exist between the two nations 
it shall be upon such conditions and guaranties only as shall be consonant with the 
dignity of the American people." 

In the meantime Mr. Herbert Parsons, a Member of Congress from New York City, 
actuated by a patriotic and high-minded interest in the importance of the subject as 
affecting the integrity of American citizenship, had given it serious and earnest con- 
sideration and had used all of his powers to induce the President to adopt the views 
suggested by the American Jewish committee and embodied in the resolution of the 
Umon of American Hebrew Congregations. Having failed to carry his point, on 
February 10, 1911, he introduced in the House of Representatives the following 
resolution: 

"In the House op Representatives, 

"February 10, 1911. 

"Mr. Parsons introduced the following joint resolution, which was refeiTed to the 
Oommittee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed: 

"Joint resolution providing for the termination of the treaty between the United 
States of America and Russia concluded at St. Petersbtu-g, December 18, 1832. 

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That it is, and always has been, a fundamental principle of this 
Government that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad 
because of religious belief; that this Government concludes its treaties for the equal 
protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to religious belief; that this 
Government will not negotiate nor be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or 
which by one of the parties thereto is construed to discriminate, between American 
citizens on the ground of religious belief; that the Government of Russia has violated 
the treaty between the United States of America and Russia concluded at St. Peters- 
btu:^, December 18, 1832, by construing that part of Article I thereto which says that 
the inhabitants of the respective States 'shall be at liberty to sojom'n and reside in all 
' parts whatsoever of said territories in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall 
enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein 
they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there pre- 
vailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce,' to mean 
that American citizens of Jewish faith are subject in Russia to the same class_ restric- 
tions that Russia imposes upon Russian inhabitants of Jewish faith, by declining to 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 257 

permit American citizens of Jewish faith to sojom-n and reside in Russia in order to 
attend to their affairs and to enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as 
non-Jewish native Russians, and by refusing to honor American passports issued to Amer- 
ican citizens of Jewish faith; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for 
the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time and be no 
longer in force; and that to this end the President be, and he hereby is, directed to 
give notice to the Government of Russia that the treaty aforesaid will terminate and 
be of no force and effect upon the exphation of the year which shall commence after 
the date of such notification." 

Thereupon the President invited the following gentlemen to a luncheon and con- 
ference at the White House on February 15, 1911: Judge Mayer Sulzberger, Jacob H, 
Schiff, and Louis Marshall, representing the American Jewish committee; J. Walter 
Freiberg, Bernhard Bettmann, and Simon Wolf, representing the Union of American 
Hebrew Congregations; and Adolf Kraus, Philip Stein, and Jacob Furth, representing 
the Independent Order B'nai B'rith. Judge Sulzberger was prevented from attending 
by reason of indisposition. The conferees presented anew the arguments in support 
01 the contention that the treaty of 1832 be abrogated, dealing as fully as practicable 
with the issues involved. Hitherto there has been no result. 

On February 16 and 22, 1911, hearings took place before the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs on the Parsons resolution, at which Representatives Parsons, Harrison, 
and Graham and Mr. Louis Marshall made earnest pleas for the abrogation of the treaty 
of 1832, and Representative Goldfogle recounted his previous activities. (See Ap- 
pendix IIL) 

On February 26 Senator Culberson of Texas introduced a resolution providing for the 
abrogation of the treaty in the following terms: 

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the treaty of eighteen hundred 
and thirty-two between the United States and Russia should be abrogated because of 
the discrimination by Russia between American citizens in the administration of the 
treaty." 

No action was taken by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs because of the 
lateness of the session, nor was consideration given to Senator Culberson's resolution. 
But upon the reassembling of Congress in extra session resolutions similar to the Parsons 
resolutions, providing for the termination of the treaty, were immediately introduced 
by Representatives William R. Calder, Francis Burton Harrison, Hemy M. Goldfogle, 
and William Sulzer, of New York; Alfred G. Allen, of Ohio; and Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee; and in the Senate by Senator Culberson. 

Mr. Sulzer 's resolution is as follows: 

"In the House of Representatives, 

''April 6, 1911. 
"Mr. Sulzer introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. 

"Joint resolution providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States 
of America and Russia concluded at Saint Petersbiurg, December eighteenth, 
eighteen hundred and thirty-two. 

"Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That the people of the United States assert as a fundamental prin- 
ciple that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad because of 
race or religion; that the Government of the United States concludes its treaties for 
the equal protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to race or religion; 
that the Government of the United States will not be a party to any treaty which dis- 
criminates, or which by one of the parties thereto is so construed as to discriminate, 
between American citizens on the ground of race or religion; that the Government of 
Russia has violated the treaty between the United States and Russia concluded at 
Saint Petersburg, December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, refusing to 
honor American passports duly issued to American citizens on account of race and 
religion; that in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, 
ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; and that to this end the President 
be, and he hereby is, directed to give the usual notice to the Government of Russia 
that the treaty aforesaid shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the expira- 
tion of the year which shall commence after the date of such notification." 

By reason of the fact that the extra session of Congress was called to consider a 
specific measure, no action on the resolutions to terminate the treaty could be had. 
But there is every reason to expect that Mr. Sulzer, who is chairman of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, and the other Representatives who have introduced resolution^ 
together with Senator Culberson, will energetically advocate the proposal to abrogate 
the treaty at the session of Congress which is to convene in December, 1911. 



258 TEKMIISTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

We have cited above the facts with respect to the negotiations carried on with 
Presidents Roosevelt and Taft. There is no evidence at this writing of any change 
in the situation. Citizens of the United States who under the Constitution are guar- 
anteed all the rights and privileges of that Constitution are denied them by the acts 
of a power with which we are in friendly relations. 

Under these circumstances the Jews of the United States are warranted in assum- 
ing that the only likelihood of a redress of their grievances is through an appeal to the 
intelligence, the patriotism, and the sense of justice of the American people to support 
the resolutions now pending in Congress, to the end that the rights which are theirs 
under the Constitution may no longer be denied them, and that the integrity of Ameri- 
can citizenship may be maintained. 

That Russia's attitude on the passport question and her flagrant violation of the 
treaty of 1832 are in line with a policy actuated by self-interest and guided by no 
considerations of the appreciation of the solemnity of treaty obligations is shown in 
her support of the Russia-American Line of steamships, which is part of the Russian 
volunteer fleet. Its agency in this country on March 16, 1911, issued a circular 
containing the following statement: 

"passports for RUSSIANS. 

"The Imperial Russian consul has an office in our building at 27 Broadway, where 
frontier passports can be secured for 80 cents fee. 

"The passenger must be in possession of his ordinary Wolostnoi passport, Mesczan- 
ski passport, or birth certificate, or any paper from a priest or rabbi, showing that the 
passenger is a Russian subject, stating his native city, and that he or she has been a 
member of their church or congregation." 

This notice is an excellent specimen of Russian diplomacy. It appears to demand 
that the passenger referred to shall acknowledge himself to be a Russian subject. In . 
point of fact he need do no such thing. In Mr. Bernstein's case above cited (and the 
instances can be multiplied), the consul had before him the fact that Mr. Bernstein 
was not a Russian subject, had never been one, and was then a citizen of the United 
States. 

The real requirement was and is buying a ticket on Russia's steamboat line. Then 
the vis6 follows without demur. 

The interest which this question has aroused is indicated by an address delivered by 
the Hon. Rufus B. Smith, president of the Bar Association of Cincinnati, at the Temple 
Club of Congregation B'nai Israel of that city on Aprils, 1911 (see Appendix IV), as 
also by a series of articles in the New York Evening Mail, beginning on June 22 of this 
year. The State legislatures of Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have 
also passed resolutions favoring the abrogation of the treaty. 

Our diplomatic history is not without precedents that should serve as a guide in 
emergencies like the present. "^Tien in 1876 the Government of Great Britain attempt- 
ed to restrict the application of the extradition provisions of the treaty of 1842 between 
the United States and that nation by seeking to control its interpretation by the pro- 
visions of an act of Parliament passed in 1870, President Grant and Secretary of State 
Hamilton Fish protested energetically. President Grant declared it to be intolerable 
that a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament passed in 1870 could qualify 
or restrict the application of an international agreement entered into in 1842, and faith- 
fully observed by both parties to it without dissent for almost a generation. 

When long-continued and patient remonstrance had no effect, President Grant on 
June 20, 1876, sent a special message to Congress in which he recited the facts at issue 
and added that pending Great Britain's refusal to execute the existing treaty, he would 
not take any action without an expression of the wish of Congress that he should do 
so, either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals 
under that treaty. He further asked Congress, in its wisdom, to determine whether 
the particular article in question should be any longer regarded as obligatory on the 
United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. This was equivalent 
to a notice to Great Britain that unless Congress directed otherwise. President Grant 
would suspend the operation of the extradition clause of the treaty of 1842 because 
of the violation of its terms by the Government of Great Britain. 

The unqualified stand taken by President Grant that one of the parties to a treaty 
could not change or alter its terms or construction or attach new conditions to its 
execution without the assent of the other, resulted in the withdrawal by Great Britain 
of her contention, and on December 23, 1876, President Grant was able to announce 
to Congress that Great Britain was prepared to observe the extradition clause of the 
treaty in accordance with the interpretation put upon it by the United States. 



TEKMIISrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 259 

In this case the question at issue affected merely the extradition of fugitive criminals, 
yet President Grant deemed it of sufficient importance practically to suspend the opera- 
tion of a clause of a treaty when he considered that its terms had been violated. The 
question at issue between the United States and Russia involves, not a mere matter 
of the extradition of criminals, but a fundamental right of American citizenship. 
In the two case involving, on the one hand, the extradition provisions of the treaty 
of 1842 with Great Britain and, on the other hand, the travel and sojourn provisions 
of the treaty of 1832 with Russia, the points at issue are almost precisely similar. 
Great Britain, after observing the treaty for nearly 30 years, attempted, by an act of 
municipal legislation, to limit or change the rights which were conceded to the United 
States by treaty; Russia, after a similar period of faithful observance of the treaty of 
1832, has for a generation persistently violated the letter and spirit of the treaty on 
a like pretext. We have seen what action President Grant took in 1876. In 1911 
the treaty with Russia is still permitted to remain in force. 

It is apparent that relief must be sought otherwise than through diplomatic channels 
Congress possesses plenary, if not exclusive power, to act in the premises, and to it 
American citizenship must appeal for the protection and preservation of its rights. 

To use the language of the Declaration of Independence: "We have petitioned for 
redress. * * * Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated 
injury. ' ' Satisfied that the righteousness of our cause will appeal to it, we submit these 
"facts * * * to a candid world." 



Appendix 1. 

[Translation.] 

Consular treaty between the German Empire and Russia of December 8 {November 28), 1874. 

(Reichsgesetzblatt, 1875, p. 145.) 

Treaty of commerce and navigation between Germany and Russia of February 10 
(January 29), 1894, including such part of the final protocol of February 9, 1897, 
relating thereto as modified bv the additional treaty and protocol of July 28 (15), 
1904. 

(Main treaty, Reichsgetzblatt, 1894, p. 153. Final protocol, Deutscher Reichsan- 
zeiger, February 10, 1897. Additional treaty, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1905, p. 35.) 

TREATY. 

Article 1. The subjects of the two contracting parties who have established them- 
selves, or who temporarily sojourn in the territory of the other, shall, in the pursuit 
of commerce or trade, enjoy the same rights as, and be subject to no higher or other 
taxes than, the inhabitants of the respective countries. The subjects of each party 
shall reciprocally enjoy in the territory of the other tha same rights, privileges, 
liberties, benefits, and immunities as the subjects of the most favored nation. 

It is mutually understood, however, that the above agreement shall not in any 
way interfere with the special laws, decrees, and ordinances with respect to com- 
merce, trade, and police which are in force or may be enacted in the country of 
either of the contracting parties and are equally applicable to all foreigners. 

Art. 12. Merchants, manufacturers, and other traders who show by the possession 
of trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte) issued by the authorities of their 
country that they are authorized to engage in trade in the state in which they reside 
shall have the right, personally or through travelers in their service, to make purchases 
or to solicit orders and also to bring irx samples in the territory of the other contract- 
ing party. The said merchants, manufacturers, and other traders or commercial 
travelers shall reciprocally, with respect to passports and the taxes levied for carry- 
ing on commerce, be accorded the same treatment as the subjects of the most favored 
nation. 

FINAL protocol, PART I, TO THE TEXT OF THE TREATY. 

To arts. 1 and 12: In regard to passports, the subjects of both parties shall be treated 
as those of the most favored nation. 

The term during which the vis6 of a passport shall be valid is fixed in Russia at a 
period of six months.- 

This provision applies also to the passport vis6s of German commercial travelers of 
the Hebrew faith. 



260 TEEMiisrATioisr of the treaty of 1832. 

The date of the crossing of the boundary shall in the future be noted by the Russian 
and the German authorities on the licenses (scheine) according to the Russian as well 
as the German calendar. 

The licenses (scheine) shall also in the future, as at present, be issued as well to 
Israelites as to Christians. 

To art. 12. In the issuance of licenses to trade and in the amount of the tax therefor 
no distinction shall be made between persons of the Christian religion and those of the 
Hebrew religion. 

[Translation.] 

Treaty oj Commerce and Navigation between Austria-Hungary and Russia, oj February 
2 (15), 1906. In force since February 16 (March 1), 1906. 

(Treaty, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1906, No, 49, pp. 493-494, 520.) 

Art. 12. Merchants, manufacturers, and other traders of either of the contracting 
parties who show, by producing trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte) 
issued by the proper authorities of the home country that they are authorized to 
engage there in commerce and industry and that they pay there all lawful taxes and 
imposts, shall have the right, either personally or through travelers in their service, to 
make purchases or to solicit orders in the territory of the other contracting party. 

In order to enjoy in Russia the right provided foi- in the first paragraph of this article, 
the said merchants, manufacturers, and other traders must be provided with special 
trade licenses, for which the fee levied for the benefit of the state shall not exceed 150 
rubles for a whole year or 75 rubles for the second half of the year. 

Their commercial travelers must each be provided, in addition, with a personal 
trade license, for which the fee, levied for the benefit of the state, shall not exceed 50 
rubles for a whole year or 25 rubles for the second half of the year. The licenses 
provided for in the second paragraph of this article may be issued in the names of the 
persons who actually repair to Russia, in which case these persons shall not be required 
to provide themselves with additional personal licenses. 

As regards the issue of the licenses and the amount of the fee therefor, no distinction 
shall be made on account of the religious affiliations of the merchants, manufacturers, 
traders, or commercial travelers. Also, with respect to the term during which the visa 
of the passports shall be valid, which is fixed for Russia at a period of six months, the 
religion of the parties in interest makes no difference. 

The trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte) shall be drawn up in accordance 
with a form agreed upon between the two high contracting parties. 

The two contracting parties shall reciprocally make known to each other who are the 
authorities competent to issue trade credentials (Gewerbelegitimationskarte), and the 
rules and regulations governing the business of the bearers of such credentials. 

(Eight additional paragraphs to this article.) 

FINAL PROTOCOL. 

To articles 1 and 12: In regard to passports, the subjects of the contracting parties, 
except as regards visas of passports, shall be treated as those of the most favored nation. 

The term during which the visa of a passport shall be valid is fixed in Russia at a 
period of six months. 

This stipulation applies also to the passport visas of Austrian and Hungarian com- 
mercial travelers of the Hebrew faith. 

Licenses shall also be issued in the future, as at present, to Israeli ties as well as to 
Christians. 

[Translation.] 

Treaty of commerce and navigation between France and Russia of March 20 (April 1), 1874, 
with modifications by the commercial convention of September 16 (29), 1905. 

(Ratifications exchanged Feb. 7 (20), 1906.) 

(Treaty, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 65, p. 225 et seq. Commercial con- 
vention. Official Journal de la Republique Francaise, Feb. 25, 1906, p. 1273 et seq.; 
also in Archives Diplomatiques, 1906, Vol. II, Nos. 4 and 5, p. 256.) 

Art. 4. Merchants, manufacturers, and other traders of either of the two countries 
who show, by the production of trade credentials (cartes de legitimation industrielle), 
issued by the authorities of their country, that they are authorized to engage there in 
commerce or industry, and that they pay their all lawful taxes and imposts, shall have 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 261 

the right personally, or through travelers in their service, to make purchases or to 
solicit orders in the territory of the other contracting party. 

In ord-er to enjoy in Russia the right provided for in the first paragraph of this 
article, the said merchants, manufacturers, and other traders must be provided with 
special licenses, for which the charge, collected for the benefit of the State, shall not 
exceed 150 rubles for a whole year and 75 rubles for the second half of the year. 

Their commercial travelers must each be provided, in addition, with a personal 
license, for which the charge, collected for the benefit of the ^tate, shall not exceed 
50 rubles for a whole year or 25 rubles for the second half of the year. The licenses 
provided for in the second paragraph of this article may be issued in the names of 
the persons who actually repair to Russia, in which case these persons shall not be 
required to provide themselves with additional personal licenses. 

In the issue of licenses and the amount of the tax therefor no distinction shall be 
made by reason of the religious affiliation of the said merchants, manufacturers, 
traders, or commercial travelers. Also, there shall be no distinction made by reason 
of the religion of the parties in interest respecting the term for which the visa of the 
passports shall be valid, which is fixed at a period of six months in Russia. 

The trade credentials (cartes de legitimation industrielle) shall be drawn up in 
accordance with a form agreed upon between the two high contracting parties. 

The two contracting parties shall reciprocally make known to each other who are 
the competent authorities to issue trade credentials (cartes de legitimation industrielle) 
and the rules and regulations governing the business of the bearers of such credentials. 

(Eight other paragraphs to this article.) 

Translation and summary of a debate in the French Chamber of Deputies, December 27, 1909. 
[Journal Officiel, Dec. 28, 1909.] 

The President. M. Hippolyte Laroche has the floor to speak upon his interpella- 
tion respecting the enforcement of the treaties of March 20 (April 1), 1874, and 16 (19) 
September, 1905, with Russia. 

M. Hippolyte Laroche. Gentlemen, on two occasions the Russian Government 
has made treaties of commerce with France, the fundamental intent of which it has 
later totally declined to regard. I refer to that which invests our citizens with the 
right freely to enter Russia. In the presance of the minister of foreign affairs I shall 
call the attention of the chamber to the disregard of obligations involving acts which 
this chamber has approved — a disregard in consequence of which the interests and 
rights of numerous French travelers are sacrificed by an interpretation unacceptable 
to us. 

The matter is simple and does not require extensive explanation. 

In 1874 a treaty was contracted between Russia and us, 8 or 10 lines of which I will 
read you: 

"Article I. The French in Russia and Russians in France may respectively, upon 
conforming to the laws of the country, have the liberty to enter, travel, and sojourn in 
all parts of the territory and possessions of the respective parties in order to attend to 
their affairs. * * * 

"The preceding provisions do not in any particular nulify the laws, ordinances, and 
special regulations respecting commerce, industry, and police in each of the two 
countries, and generally applicable to all foreigners." 

These provisions do not permit any equivocation; they concern and embrace all 
the citizens of the two Sta.tes, and do not permit of any distinction to the detriment 
of any class of citizens. Not one word permits France to exclude from their benefits 
any subjects of the Czar, and she has never dreamed of it. Not one word permits 
the Russian Government to exclude from the benefit of these pro^dsions any of our 
inhabitants if they are French citizens and their citizenship is not contested. 

Nevertheless, the treaty once concluded, the Russian Government draws a dis- 
tinction between different classes of the French people to whom it undertakes to close 
its frontiers, namely, members of the clergy, freethinkers, and Jews. They are not 
more inclusive. 

These infringements of the common rights created by the treaty have not failed to 
occasion much uneasiness. Also, France took advantage in the negotiation of a new 
agreement in 1905 to account to the Government of the Czar the ill effect of the re- 
strictions put upon the admission of our citizens visiting Russian territory. Our 
friendly representations were received in good part at St. Petersburg; and we cher- 
ished the illusion of believing that we had obtained what we had wished for. No 
attempt was made to modify the terms of the treaty of 1874; * * * But theinten- 
tion to break with the practices of the past was manifested anew in the drawing up 
of article 4 of the new convention. Up to that time the tax imposed on travelers in 



262 TERMINATION OF THE TKEATY OF 1832. 

Russia was triple for the Jews and duration of their sojourn in Russian territory was 
reduced by half. Article 4 of the convention of 1905 abolished this inequality and 
formulated a definite rule: "No distinction shall be made, whatever be the religion." 

The promise to let all travelers sojourn an equal length of time, implied of course, 
that of allowing them first to enter Russia; and far from seeing a snare in this article 4, 
far from recognizing a greater deception, it was not imagined that Russia, in deny- 
ing the duration of the validity of a passport, reserved the right to do worse, to repulse 
the bearer and not even to let him enter her territory. 

The intent, which we must attribute to the adoption of the new act, was empha- 
sized with striking force on the 14th of December, 1905, from the same tribune from 
which I now have the honor to speak. The chamber discussed its ratification; the 
president of the customs' commissions, at that time our former colleague, M. Noel, 
now senator, gave utterance to these words reported in the Journal Officiel, and I beg 
you to impress them on your minds: 

' ' We have gained the point that no account will be taken of religion; and we have 
declared that France will never put her signature at the bottom of a treaty which 
makes any difference of treatment among her travelers." 

M. Noel, as well as my friend, M. Lauraine, whom I call upon as witness, had just 
taken part at St. Petersburg as delegate from the ministry of commerce in the draw- 
ing up of the new treaty, article by article. From the mouth of the Russian negotia- 
tors he had received adherence to "the French idea. He believed their word and com- 
municated it with a confidence that received currency. And the chamber approved, 
convinced that every misunderstanding had ceased between the Republic and her 
ally. 

It amounted to nothing. The misunderstanding has not ceased. The difference 
of treatment, proclaimed by M. Noel thenceforth impossible, the Government of the 
Czar persists in making. In spite of the text which prohibits it, it has done so pub- 
licly, officially, systematically, in daily practice, in a manner prejudicial and vexa- 
tious to the Jews, the freethinkers, and the French priests. It refuses to receive them 
in Russia unless by virtue of authority, exceptionally accorded as a favor, often at the 
personal intercession of our ambassador or our minister of foreign affairs. We make 
acknowledgement to the minister in such cases, for his obliging intercession; but it 
must be understood that we are not satisfied with obtaining as a precarious favor what 
we demand by right * * *. 

Moreover, how many travelers are in position to resort to the minister hiniself and to 
his good offices? Most of the time an introduction is lacking, sufficient to reach him. 
An intermediary is not at hand to plead their cause, if they live far from Paris; and 
their sole recourse is to proceed regularly; that is to say, in the following manner: 

The formality of passports, suppressed almost everywhere, exists and is of great 
importance in Russia. A Frenchman, desiring to visit Russia, requests a passport at 
the prefecture of his Department. Until last year, it was given to him for what it was 
worth, without any inquisition being made into his religion; but for some months past 
the Russian police has obtained from our prefects a strange cooperation; our prefects 
themselves inquire as to the religion of the applicant and affix upon the passport of 
the freethinker or the Jew the damaging statement which subjects him to the ill will of 
the imperial authorities. * * * 

The Russian consuls often demand a baptismal certificate. 

M. Francis db Pressense. You know that there are two circulars, one of the 
22d December, 1908, the other of the 2f)th April, 1909, which precisely fixes what you 
now complain of. * * * 

This is not m.erely the act of the prefects. It is the act of M. Clemenceau. 

M. HiPPOLYTE Laroche. This is not the spontaneous act of the prefects. I dis- 
avow their responsibility; they obey the orders of their chief. 

Perhaps it is appropriate to recall that formerly when the quinquennial census of 
our population was taken, the religious affiliation of each head of a family was inquired 
into. This information was only sought for purely statistical purposes and never 
eerved as a pretext for inquisitorial investigations into personal beliefs. Later, this 
was given up and does not appear in the enumerations of the last quarter of a century. 
How can you reconcile this scrupulous care, this precedent with the instructions 
ordering that the religious affiliation of the bearer shall appear upon the passports 
which the prefects issxie when it is placed there not for any statistical interest, but in 
this instance to serve only religious intolerance, or at least with the known purpose of 
subjecting our fellow citizens to religious intolerance in the East. 

As Russia does not keep her engagements, we do not refer to it, capitulate and bow 
with easy resignation. The instructions of the president of the council of the 22d 
December, 1908, and 26th April last, charge the prefects to inform the interested 
parties that they can not count upon the guarantees written in the treaties. Are you 
a freethinker? Then the Russian consuls "may refuse their vis6 to the passport borne 



TERMIISrATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 263 

by one who does not belong to any positive religion." These are the terms of the 
circular of the 26th April, 1909. * * * . 

Are you a Jew? If so, you will not be admitted, "unless exceptionally to enter 
Russia; " and if you are admitted, the duration of the validity of your French passport, 
which is six months for Christians, will be for you "for only three months." "^Tiat 
becomes of article 4 of the convention of 1905? Above all, if the prefects omit to 
take note of the religion "this statement is essential." I extract these citations from 
the circular of 22 December, 1908. * * * 

I can not refrain from noting the contrast between the attitude of the French Govern- 
ment and that of the small States, which have not deemed it expedient to lend them- 
selves to illegal requirements. A Jewish merchant of my acquaintance, knowing to 
what he was exposed by the mention of his religious faith, upon his passport, if he 
undertook to go to Moscow, and passing through the Kingdom of Bavaria, asked of the 
Bavarian Government if a passport to Russia would be delivered to him at Munich 
without mentioning this fact. Here follows the reply within eight days, which was 
sent to him by the minister of state: "The minister of state and of foreign affairs has 
decided that the religion of the holders of passports destined for Russia need not be 
indicated by the Bavarian authorities. I so advise you in reply to your inquiry of the 
23d of July." 

Without doubt, Russia is free to govern her native Jews and freethinkers by excep- 
tional laws; she is free to pen them within certain defined territories, to prevent them 
from entering numerous professions, from becoming landowners, to prevent four- 
fifths of their children having access to schools, etc. When she legalizes these acts, 
they are of interest only to Russian subjects within the Empire; we have not the right 
right to object, and we keep our opinion to ourselves. Russia can equally impose 
upon strangers enjoying her hospitality many a disagreeable obligation, such as pre- 
senting oneself on certain days at the police office and of paying enormous taxes, either 
for remaining in the city, or for going from one city to another, etc. Russia, in one 
word, may prescribe a thousand measures that please her and apply them to French 
travelers i^roviding these measures are equally applicable to all strangers. 

But the treaties of 1874 and 1905 do not permit that the length of residence of certain 
of our fellow citizens be reduced nor allow her to prohibit them entrance under the 
pretext that their religious faith is not that of the Russian people, or that the French 
point of view, so far as concerns these points, is unpleasing in the eyes of the Govern- 
ment of the Czar. If one admits that Russia, in the execution of the treaties of 1874 
and 1905, is free to make differences between Frenchmen on account of creed^ it 
would be necessary also to admit that she is free to differentiate among them on 
account of their political opinions and to close her doors to members of one party, 
the Republican party, for example, whose attitude of mind seems to be far removed 
from the Russian. 

In times gone by, without doubt, before the days of treaties, the Russian Govern- 
ment had full power to act in this way and to consult her own convenience, but since 
it has a treaty with us it is bound by its engagements. Now, the first article of the 
treaty of 1874 is absolute. All Frenchmen may enter Russia on condition, well under- 
stood, on conforming to the laws of the country. It is self-evident that they can not 
conform to the laws of the country before they enter. Consequently, they must first 
enter, since the treaty of 1874 gives full right, when it says, "the French may enter 
Russia and attend to their affairs there with full liberty." The phrase is clear and if 
it does not mean what it says we will have to give up trying to understand the lan- 
guage of Voltaire, famous for its clearness. * * * 

Putting aside all possible quibbles, this remains above all contradiction: That the 
Parliament, when these treaties were submitted for consideration, read them with 
candor, without seeking for a secret cryptograph, without discovering it in them, 
without even suspecting in them any hidden sense contrary to its plain and evident 
intent. It is incontrovertible that when the act of 1905 was approved, after having 
heard M. Noel, just returned from Russia, making the declaration which you remember 
the chamber believed that every distinction on account of religion had been aban- 
doned by Russia in the reception to be accorded our travelers. * * * 

Why did we not open negotiations with Russia for the purpose of fixing the inter- 
pretation of the fundamental provision of our treaties of commerce? 

In fact, while Russia has preserved for herself reactionary laws, she sees rising about 
her borders the flood of more modern ideas and she has not failed at times to support 
them among neighboring nations. Did she not at the same time as France sign the 
great treaty of Berlin on July 13, 1878, recognizing and establishing the independ- 
ence of Roumania? Did not the Russian plenipotentiaries collaborate in draw- 
ing up article 44 of that treaty, which is as follows: "The citizens of all powers, mer- 
chants or others, shall be treated in Roumania without distinction as to religion, upon 
a footing of perfect equality?" 



264 TERMINATIOJSr OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

_ When we suggest to Russia to apply in the treatment of French travelers the prin- 
ciples and the maxims which she has had the wisdom to recognize, and helped to 
impose on others, she will have difficulty; in saying no to us. 

The United States is carrying on negotiations to the same end. In his first message 
Mr. Taft announced that the matter would engage his attention. (After quoting the 
resolution adopted by Congress in March, 1909, M. Laroche proceeded.) 

Gentlemen, from two sides of the Atlantic the identical demand is made. It is the 
voice of the twentieth century speaking. * * * The United States will not be 
content with partial and incomplete concessions. They persist in demanding all or 
nothing. The time is ripe for us to give standing to our own. It will be a pity to let 
another power take fi'om us the lead in the crusade for the triumph of the great ideas 
of humanity so ably defended by France in the past. (After an account of the nego- 
tiations with certain Cantons of Switzerland which put restrictions upon the right of 
foreign Jews to enter such Cantons and the successful efforts of the French Government 
to have the rights of French citizens irrespective of religion recognized in Switzerland, 
he continued.) 

It is under these conditions that the Franco-Swiss Convention of June 30, 1864, 
was concluded, fixing thenceforth that all Frenchmen would be put upon the same 
footing and treated in equal manner throughout the 22 Cantons. The federation has 
honored its signatm-e and has executed with fidelity for 45 years all clauses of the 
treaty which she subscribed. 

The Government of the Czar, signatory of the treaties conceived by us in the same 
spirit and containing similar clauses, evades them by excluding from their benefits 
French Jews, priests, and freethinkers. * * * 

I hope that the Government of the Republic will know how to effect with the 
Russian ministers the half of what Napoleon III accomplished with the Swiss Federa- 
tion, and that she will impose on oiu ally no new engagements, but the simple execu- 
tion of those which it seemed to renew or make four years ago and which were the sine 
qua non of the ratification of the last treaty by the chambers. 

The minister of foreign affairs, in his reply, quoted the treaty of April 1, 1874, 
which is in effect the same as Article 1 of the treaty between the United States and 
Russia of December 18, 1832. And he quoted in support of the ministerial interpreta- 
tion of the meaning of the treaty the opinion of M. Louis Renault to the effect that the 
treaty, by its clause rendering travelers subject to the prevailing laws and ordinances 
of Russia, in a large measure gave Russia the right to determane who shall cross her 
borders. If police regulations take account of the religion of individuals, the French 
must submit, and can not expect their own laws, which do not take account of religion, 
to pi-evail and to determine the rights of citizens traveling in Russia. This is an inter- 
nal matter and the treaty only provides against any differential treatment among 
foreigners. The treaty of 1905 does not contain any clause to the effect that the pass- 
ports must be visaed no matter what the religion of the applicant The minister of 
foreign affairs added that it had only been since his attention had been called to the 
matter by M. Laroche that he had taken up this question, since he had never had any 
complaint on the subject; that he understood that commercial travelers had freely 
received passports to enter Russia. He had had an investigation made at the Chamber 
of Commerce in Paris and elsewhere and there was no complaint by commercial 
travelers there or at the ministry of foreign affairs on the subject. To this M. Laroche 
replied that the complaints had been addressed to the president of the Council of the 
League of the Rights of Man. The minister of foreign affairs defended the circular 
referred to by M. Laroche on the ground that it prevented delay in procuring vis^s 
of passports by Russian consular authorities. Since whenever the information 
desired by the Russian authorities was not provided, inquiries are made which delay 
delivery of the passport. The circulars mentioned were issued in order to avoid these 
inconveniences. As for the demand that France take steps to have the Russian 
Government admit all Frenchmen without exception, the minister of foreigia affairs 
said he would accept this, but he feared that he would be on poor ground if he had to 
undertake to discuss an interpretation of the clause of the treaty with the Russian 
Government. Because whatever were the declarations made from the platform 
during the discussion of the treaty of 1905, the text of the treaty shows the French 
Government was not in a good position to obtain the satisfaction which was so legiti- 
mately demanded . He did not admit the right to demand that the religion of the appli- 
cant should appear on the passport, but it was simply a matter for finding a practical 
means to allow French citizens to enter Russia with as little difficulty as possible. 
As for the action of the Bavarian Government, it had effected nothing. France had 
a right to decline to state on the passport the religion of the holder, but inconveniences, 
delays, and inquiries would result, and it was to avoid these difficulties that it was 
preferred to answer all questions. France replied as did Bavaria, but we refer to 



TEEMIlSrATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 265 

what the United States has done, and Russia's reply, "T\Tiat about your laws respect- 
ing Chinese immigration?" * * * To these M. Laroche replied that the United 
States had no treaty with China. The minister of foreign affairs admitted the cases 
were not similar, but he added that all countries could, by police regulations, control 
the entry of certain foreigners. To which Mr. Lacrohe answered provided there were 
not treaties that prevented it. The minister of foreign affairs stated that the United 
States had received no satisfaction from the Russian Government, but that he was 
ready to undertake to take steps with the Russian Government to have the matter 
in dispute remedied. Further, he would willingly undertake these steps at the 
same time as the Government of the United States to relieve the situation com- 
plained of. * * * 

M. Francis de Pressens^, in speaking to the question, disputed the interpretation 
which M. Louis Renault put upon the terms of the treaties of 1874 and 1905 and held 
that there was ample authority for the view that the treaties do not permit of any 
distinction being drawn by Russia between the citizens of France who have entered 
Russian territory. * * * He demanded that France take immediate steps to do 
everything possible at St. Petersburg that the differential treatment be not maintained, 
and that the obnoxious French circulars of December, 1908, and April, 1909, which put 
France in the position of being a party in a measure to the differential treatment 
Imposed by Russia, be withdrawn. He drew attention to the fact that this was not 
the first time that a question of this kind was considered by the French Parliament. 
It was up frequently under the July monarchy, when Switzerland and Saxony were 
involved in the controversy, and France, in 1835, through the Duke de Broglie, 
adopted a very strong attitude. King Louis Phillipe himself, in an audience which 
he granted- to M. Cremieux, president of the Central Consistory of the Jews, declared 
that it was not only the interest but the duty of France to obtain respect for the 
fundamental principles of her constitution. At that time the question concerned an 
analogous occurrence which had happened in Switzerland, and M. Carnot, son of the 
great Carnot and father of the President of the Republic, expounded clearly the 
principles which should control. M. Beaumont, the friend of de Tocqueville, took 
part in the discussion, and M. Cremieux expounded the law which has application in 
the present instance. France had stipulated that French citizens should receive the 
same treatment in Switzerland as Swiss citizens. Switzerland had replied, "You do 
receive the same treatment as Swiss citizens, but there are Swiss citizens and Swiss 
Jews. The French Jews receive the same treatment as Swiss Jews." M. Guizot, 
the minister of foreign affairs, had declared that he regretted this interpretation, but 
he could not contest it. M. Cremieux, on the other hand, demonstrated by strong 
arguments that France demanded of Switzerland that all French citizens, without 
regard to religion, creed, or opinion, should enjoy the same rights as Swiss citizens; 
that Switzerland might have Jews who were debarred from the right of citizenship, 
but that she had no right on that account to deprive a single French citizen of the 
rights belonging to Swiss citizens. * * * He regretted that the Government had 
not undertaken negotiations if these were necessary to obtain the change in the treaty 
of 1905. He particularly regretted it, not because It was a question of inconvenience 
which might be caused to a Frenchman who wished to enter Russian territory, but 
because it put France la the position of seeming to connive at the differential treat- 
ment of French citizens of one creed as agamst those of another. The reply that the 
question as to one's religion was asked of the applicant for the passport in order to 
prevent the prohibition of entry into Prussia was not sufficient to prevent the Bavarian 
Government from insisting that it would not be a party to such a view and that it 
would not make such an inquisition. * * * He criticized severely the issuance of 
the circulars referred to above by the French Governm.ent. He drew attention t the 
fact that In 1815, just after the Congress of Vienna, Turkey had made a treaty with 
Austria by the terms of which Tmrkish subjects were to receive in Austria the same 
treatment as Austrian subjects. Austria undertook to treat Ottoman Jews differently 
from other Ottoman subjects because she treated her own Jews differently from her 
ither subjects. The Sublime Porte protested that she could not permit of the slightest 
difference being made between any Turkish subjects no matter what their creed, and 
in September, 1815, M. de Metternich gave Turkey satisfaction, and thenceforward 
all Turkish subjects were treated alike. 

He referred to the negotiations between the United States and Russia on the pass- 
port question, mentioned earlier in the debate, and that the immigration legislation of 
the United States had been made to serve the purpose of a tuquoque, but nevertheless 
the United Stateshadnotfailed to demand that its point of view be upheld, and he 
recited various steps which the United States had taken. 

In conclusion, he demanded that France return to the position adopted under the 
July Monarchy, and that she speak to Russia in the same language that the Duke de 



266 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Broglie adopted in 1835, and that not only the advantages said to be obtained by the 
United States be secured, but that France secure the same recognition from Russia 
that Turkey acquired from Austria under Mettemich in 1815. 

The minister for foreign affairs, in concluding the debate, stated that the circulars 
that had been referred to had been issued only to avoid the difl&culties met with at the 
frontier on the part of French travelers who neglected to conform to the interpretation 
of the treaty which Russia put upon it; that as soon as his attention was drawn to the 
objections raised he had written to the minister of the interior that, owing to the delicacy 
of the question, Government officials should only advise applicants for passports that 
they would be subjected to inconvenience if they would not answer the question as 
to their religion, but to make the entry only with the consent of the applicant. He 
added that, much to his regret, France was not in a position to demand that French 
laws be applied in Russian territory, just as Russia is not in a position to demand that 
Russian laws be applied in French territory; since the treaty was in existence respect- 
ing the issuance of passports, and the convention of 1905 fixed the conditions under 
which the passports were to be visaed, the French Government had to conform to the 
provisions adopted by her when this treaty was agreed to. But he was prepared to 
renew negotiations with the Russian Government to procure an interpretation of the 
treaty which would give satisfaction. 

At the conclusion of the debate the following was passed: 

"The chamber, considering that Russia does not respect the provisions of the treaty 
of 1874 and of the convention of 1905 as equally applicable to the citizens of the two 
States, without regard to religion, and confident that the Government will undertake 
negotiations to establish the interpretation of these treaties, passes to the order of the 
day." 

Appendix 2. 
russia and the american passport.* 

The character of a nation is the reflex of the character of its citizens. If they are 
virtuous, virile, and self-respecting, the nation will of necessity possess the same 
qualities. If they have no pride in the honor and dignity of their citizenship, it 
inevitably follows that the national sense of honor is lacking, or falls below the ideal 
standard which should prevail. Whenever the citizens of a country as a mass fail to 
thrill in response to great achievements, or to resent a national insult, it must be due 
either to lack of information or to a want of that spirit by which great commonwealths 
have been created and preserved. Rome became a world power when, with con- 
scious pride, its sons gloried in the declaration, "civis Romanus sum." It fell when 
the members of the State ceased to respond to that magic phrase. 

American citizenship has hitherto been regarded as a priceless treasure. Men 
have gladly given for it their lives and all their material possessions. It has meant 
to them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has been to theni a badge of 
honor and distinction, and the richest guerdon of all their hopes and aspii-ations. It 
has peopled the wilderness and lighted the torch of progress and civilization. It has 
challenged universal respect, and has gained for itself the good will of well nigh all 
the peoples of the earth. 

And yet there rests a stain on the honor of our Nation and on the integrity of Ameri- 
can citizenship; for the passport issued by the State Department of the Uiiited States, 
bearing the great seal of our country, and which vouches for the citizenship of him_ to 
whom it is issued, is dishonored, rejected, and arbitrarily disregarded by the Russian 
Government whenever the citizen by whom it is presented happens to be a Jew. It 
matters not if he be able to trace his ancestry to those who landed with Columbus, to 
those who were among the settlers who came to New York in 1655, to those who fought 
in the War of Independence. It matters not that none of their kith or kin ever was a 
subject of Russia. All are denied the privilege of entering its domain, though pano- 
plied with the armor and the shield of American citizenship. 

For more than 30 years this has been the declared policy of the Russian Govern- 
ment. Its discrimination against our citizens has been persistently and constantly 
avowed and acted upon. Men of every class have suffered the same ignominy and 
contumely. No man within the hearing of my voice who professes_ to_ be a Jew, 
however eloquent in true Americanism his life has been, can venture within the walls 
which Russia has erected against the outside world, even though accredited by a pass- 
port from our Government, without having his credentials figuratively torn into 
shreds and cast defiantly into his face. 



1 Address by Louis Marshall, Esq., before the 22d council of Union of American Hebrew congregations 
in New York, Jan. 19, 1911. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 267 

As a Jew he might look down upon his persecutors with pity and contempt, and 
suffer in silence as his ancestors did for centuries. But he is now more than a Jew — 
he is also an American citizen, and the hand that smites him inflicts a stain on his 
citizenship. It is not the Jew who is insulted; it is the American people. And the 
finding of a proper remedy against this degradation is not a Jewish, but an American 
question. The discussion of it has no proper part in the proceedings of this conven- 
tion, except for the purpose of calling to the attention of the American people the 
facts which can not have been sufficiently impressed upon their minds, else they 
would have long since clamored for redress. 

What has been apparently overlooked or at least has not been fully appreciated, 
is the prime consideration that, ever since 1832, Russia has been under treaty obliga- 
tion to accord to all of our citizens, without distinction, the liberty to sojourn and 
reside in all parts of her territory and to guarantee to them security and protection. 
The first article of this treaty reads thus: 

" There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall 
mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each 
party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn 
and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, 
and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the 
country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- 
nances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning 
commerce." 

On the very face of this article are written the two important underlying theories of 
every treaty, that it evidences a contractual relation, a compact between the nations 
entering into it, and that the obligations and rights created by it are reciprocal. The 
two nations are spoken of as "the high contracting parties," the liberty of commerce 
and navigation is referred to as "reciprocal," and the inhabitants of the several States 
are "mutually" to have the liberties which are defined in unequivocal and unam- 
biguous terms. 

As was said by Mr. Justice Miller in the Head Money cases (112 U. S., 598): 

"A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for 
the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the Governments 
which are parties to it." 

In its construction the same rules which govern other compacts properly apply. 
(United States v. Reynes, 9 How., 127.) There is no rule of interpretation applica- 
ble to treaties or to private contracts which would authorize either of the parties to 
make exceptions by construction, where the parties have not thought proper to make 
them. (Society for Propagation of Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat., 464, 488, 489; 
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 722.) 

As indicative of the accepted rule of interpretation of treaties, the language of Mr. 
Justice Field in Geofroy v. Riggs (133 U. S., 271) is significant: 

" It is a general principle of construction with respect to treaties that they shall be 
liberally construed, so as to carry out the apparent intention of the parties to secure 
equality and reciprocity between them. As they are contracts between independ- 
ent nations, in their construction words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning, 
as understood in the public law of nations, and not in any artificial or special sense 
impressed upon them by local law, unless such restricted sense is clearly intended. 
And it has been held by this court that where a treaty admits of two constructions, 
one restrictive of rights that may be claimed under it and the other favorable to them, 
the latter is to be preferred." 

There is no exception, express or implied, in the first or any other article of the 
treaty of 1832. Its terms are of universal application. They include, not some but 
all of the inhabitants of the high contracting parties. They give the liberty to sojourn 
and reside within the territories of the respective nations, not to some, but to all of their 
citizens. There is no distinction of race or color, creed or sex. No discrimination is 
contemplated or permitted. All Russians are to be admitted here. All Americans 
are to be admitted there. 

If it were suggested by our Government that no Russian subject who is a resident of 
St. Petersbiirg or of Moscow, or a member of the Greek Catholic Church, should be 
accorded the rights and privileges secured by this treaty, we would be regarded as 
guilty of a gross violation of its letter and its spirit. If Russia should declare that no 
citizens of the United States residing west of the Mississippi or south of the Ohio should 
receive the benefits of this treaty, not only the South and West, but our entire country, 
would stand aghast at the dishonor inflicted on the entire Nation. If Russia should 
announce that it would not honor the passport of the United States when held by an 
Episcopalian or a Presbyterian, a Methodist, or a Roman Catholic, our coimtry would 



268 TEltMlNATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

not look upon this breach of treaty obligation as a mere insult to the Episcopalians or 
the Presbyterians, the Methodists, or the Roman Catholics of this coimtry, but would 
justly treat it as a blow inflicted upon every man who holds dear the title of American 
citizen. 

Though this proposition is so plain that discussion and illustration are alike unneces- 
sary, Russia has persisted in the practice of requiring its consuls within the jiu-isdic- 
tion of the United States to interrogate American citizens as to their race and religious 
faith, and upon ajfcertainment thereof to deny to Jews authentication of passports or 
legal documents for use in Russia. 

The existence of this practice was denoimced by President Cleveland in the very 
words which have just been used, in his annual message to Congress in 1895; yet in 
spite of this protest this practice has continued ever since, and not only Russian 
consuls, but Russian Ambassadors, have refused to vise passports after ascertaining, 
as a result of inquiry, that the bearer, though an American citizen, is also a Jew. 

The Russian Government has thus broken its compact, flouted its obligations, and 
ignored a series of continued protests voiced by every President of the United States 
since the administration of President Hayes. 

In the meantime the United States has sacredly observed the obligation of this 
treaty. Its highest com't has, at the instance of the Russian Government, enforced it 
most drastically and under conditions when, by strict construction, Russia might well 
have been denied that which it demanded as of right, under the terms of this very 
treaty whose obligations it has thus deliberately disregarded. It will be instructive 
by way of contrast to consider the facts and the decision in Tucker v. Alexandroff (183 
U. S., 424). Alexandroff was a conscript in the Russian naval service. He was 
assigned to the duties of an assistant physician. In 1899 he was detailed, with 53 
others, to Philadelphia, to take possession of and man the cruiser Variag, then under 
construction by Cramp & Sons under a contract with the Russan Government. While 
the vessel was still under construction, and before its acceptance by the Russian 
Government, Alexandroff deserted, went to New York, where he renounced his allegi- 
ance to the Czar of Russia, and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United 
States. At the instance of the Russian vice consul, Alexandroff was arrested on the 
charge of desertion, in accordance with the terms of Article IX of the treaty of 1832. 
This provided that the consuls, vice consuls, and commercial agents of the two con- 
tracting parties "are authorized to require the assistance of the local authorities, for 
the search, an'est, detention, and imprisonment of the deserters from the ships of war 
and merchant vessels of their country. * * * Such deserters, when an*ested, 
shall be placed at the disposal of the said consuls, vice consuls, or commercial agents, 
and may be confined in the public prisons, at the request and cost of those who shall 
claim them, in order to be detained until the time when they shall be restored to the 
vessels to which they belonged, or sent back to their own country by a vessel of the 
same nation or any other vessel whatsoever." 

It was contended on behalf of Alexandroff that when he arrived at Philadelphia the 
cruiser was not a ship, that at the time of his desertion she had not been accepted by 
the Russian Government, had neither equipment nor armament, had not received 
on board her crew, nor had she been commissioned for active service, and was not 
therefore a ship of war. 

Notwithstanding the facts upon which stress was thus laid, the Supreme Court 
held that on a liberal interpretation of the treaty the Variag was a ship of war, and 
Alexandroff, having been detailed to her service, was, from the time she became a 
ship, a part of her crew. Alexandroff was therefore surrendered to the Russian Gov- 
ernment, without a quibble, without an effort to do violence to the language of the 
treaty, without seeking to implant upon it exceptions which it did not contain, and 
in spite of the fact that on the strict interpretation that would have been given to a 
criminal or penal statute of our own country he would doubtless have been discharged. 

The reason for this adjudication is to be found in the words of Mr. Justice Brown, 
which, when compared with the interpretation which Russia has given to the first 
articles of this same treaty, emphasizes the astonishment evoked in any well-consti- 
tuted mind at the wanton disregard by Russia of the sanctity of its national honor. 
Says the distinguished jurist, in tenns that reflect credit upon our jurisprudence: 

"We think, then, that the rights of the parties must be determined by the treaty, 
but that this particular convention being operative upon both powers and intended 
for their mutual protection, shotild be interpreted in a spirit of uberrima fides, and 
in a manner to carry out its manifest purpose. (Taylor on International Law, sec. 
383.) As treaties are solemn engagements entered into between independent nations 
for the common advancement of their interests and the interests of civilization, and 
as their main object is not only to avoid war and secure a lasting and perpetual peace, 
but to promote a friendly feeling between the people of the two countries, they should 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 269 

be interpreted in that broad and liberal spirit which is calculated to make for the 
existence of a perpetual amity, so far as it can be done without the sacrifice of indi- 
vidual rights or those principles of personal liberty which lie at the foundation of our 
jurisprudence.' It is said by Chancellor Kent in his "Commentaries' ' (Vol. I, p. 174): 
'Treaties of every kind are to receive a fair and liberal interpretation according to 
the intention of the contracting parties, and are to be kept with the most scrupulous 
good faith. Their meaning is to be ascertained by the same rules of construction 
and course of reasoning which we apply to the interpretation of private contracts.' " 

This decision was rendered just nine years ago, and one would have believed that, 
with such an exalted example of the faith ful performance on the part of our Govern- 
ment and all of its departments of the behests of this treaty, Russia would have 
hearkened to the representations of our Government, demanding that it should 
recognize its reciprocal obligations and give full faith and credit to its own treaty 
obligations. It has, however, remained deaf to the oft-repeated and earnest expostula- 
tions which our Government has addressed to it. It has drawn the lines of discrimina- 
tion more harshly. It has excluded great American merchants and manufacturers 
and builders from its territory. As a crowning insult, it has but recently issued a 
special edict offering to an American ambassador the privilege of entering its territory, 
"notwithstanding that he was one of the Jewish persuasion." By a special act of 
grace, an accredited representative of the Government of the United States was 
tendered absolution for the crime of being a Jew, a favor which this experienced diplo- 
mat happily declined to accept. From the standpoint of the Nation's honor, however, 
the refusal to admit even an ambassador of this country would have been no greater 
wrong than the refusal to honor the passport of the humblest of our citizens. 

For more than thii'ty years this condition, described in many of om* diplomatic 
dispatches to Russia as intolerable, has nevertheless been tolerated. Every four 
years, when the national conventions meet, planks have been placed in the platforms 
of the great parties, giving assurance of relief. On June 22, 1904, the Republican 
National Convention declared : 

"We commend the vigorous efforts made by the administration to protect American 
citizens in foreign lands and pledge oiuselves to insist upon the just and equal protec- 
tion of all our citizens abroad. It is the unquestioned duty of the Government to pro- 
ern-e for all our citizens, without distinction, the rights of travel and sojourn in friendly 
countries, and we declare ourselves in favor of all efforts tending to that end." 

On July 8, 1904, the national convention of the Democratic Party declared: 

"We pledge ourselves to insist iipon the just and lawful protection of our citizens at 
home and abroad, and to use all proper measures to secure for them, whether native- 
born or naturalized, and without distinction of race or creed, the equal protection of 
our laws and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them under the cove- 
nants of our treaties of friendship and commerce ; and if under existing treaties the right 
of travel and sojourn is denied to American citizens, or recognition is withheld from 
American passports by any cotm tries on the ground of race or creed, we favor the be- 
ginning of negotiations with the Governments of such countries to secure by treaties 
the removal of these unjust discriminations. We demand that all over the world a 
duly authenticated passport issued by the Government of the United States to an 
American citizen shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen, and shall en- 
title him to the treatment due him as such . ' ' 

At the Republican National Convention heldon June 19, 1908, there was a reiteration 
in exact words of the declaration contained in the platform of 1904, and in the platform 
adopted by the Democratic National Convention of July 9, 1908, there was a similar 
repetition of the pledge contained in its platform of four years before. 

In his speech of acceptance, delivered at Cincinnati on July 28, 1908, Mr. Taft said: 

"The position which our country has won under Republican administrations before 
the world should inure to the benefit of every one, even the humblest of those entitled 
to look to the American flag for protection, without regard to race, creed, or color, and 
whether he is a citizen of the United States or of one of our dependencies. In some 
countries with which we are on friendly terms, distinctions are made in respect to the 
treatment of our citizens traveling abroad, and having passports of our Executive, 
based on considerations that are repugnant to the principles of our Government and 
civilization. The Republican Party and Administration will continue to make every 
proper endeavor to secure the abolition of such distinctions which, in our eyes, are both 
needless and opprobrious." 

In a speech delivered by Mr. Taft at Brooklyn on October 26, 1908, he said: 

"It seems to me that we ought to give the traveling American citizen the broad 
significance that Roman citizens had in the days of Rome. Therefore, we should 
progress to the point where, no matter in what part of the world an American citizen 
may be found, his certificate of citizenship shall be all that is required to insure him 



270 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

respect and good treatment. Nothing, if I am elected President, will give me greater 
pleasure than to devise ways and means to make the American passport respected 
the world over. Do not misunderstand me. What I am promising is, that every effort 
shall be made to this end. ' ' 

In a speech delivered by Mr. Taft at the Thalia Theater, in this city, on October 
28, 1908, he said: 

' 'But that national prestige must be used, not only for the benefit of the world at 
large, but for the benefit of our own citizenship; and, therefore, as we gain in inter- 
national prestige, we ought to assert our insistence that our passport, certifying our 
citizenship, should secure to every man, without regard to creed or race, the same 
treatment, the same equality of opportunity in every nation of the globe. Now, 
this is not a matter with respect to which promises of immediate accomplishment 
can be made, but of this you can be certain, that if you commend the administration 
of Theodore Roosevelt by electing a Republican administration to succeed his, that 
administration will continue to press that question until the certificate contained 
in an American passport shall have the effect that it ought to have. " 

In a letter addressed by Mr. Root, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Jacob H. Schiff 
on October 19, 1908, after giving the reasons for acting favorably upon the applica- 
tion for the reopening of the Pouren case, that great statesman said: 

' 'The other matter relates to securing from the Russian Government equality of 
treatment for all American citizens who seek to enter Russia with passports, without 
regard to their creed or origin. Our Government has never varied in its insistence 
upon such treatment, and this administration has repeatedly brought the matter 
to the attention of the Russian Government and urged the making of a new treaty for 
the purpose of regulating the subject. We have but very recently received an 
unfavorable reply to this proposal, and we have now communicated to Russia an 
expression of the desire of this Government for the complete revision and amendment 
of the treaty of 1832, which provides for reciprocal rights of residence and travel on 
the part of the citizens of the two countries. We have expressed our views that such 
a course would be preferable to the complete termination of the treaty, subjecting 
both countries to the possibility of being left without any reciprocal rights whatever, 
owing to the delay in the making of a new treaty. " 

These authoritative expressions indicate, beyond peradventure, that the attitude 
of Russia toward the American passport is regarded, as it must be, exclusively an 
American question, one which concerns the Nation as an entirety. 

During the past two years there has been an abundance of well-directed effort to 
induce Russia, by the ordinary diplomatic channels, to recognize the obligations of 
its contract. Congress has passed resolutions indicative of the same desire, and of a 
like recognition of the broad scope of the question at issue. Apparently we are to-day 
as far from a solution of this problem, which goes home to every American citizen, 
as we were 30 years ago. 

The painfully slow methods of diplomacy have failed. We, a Nation of 100,000,000 
Americans, stand at the door of Russia, hat in hand, pleading with it that it shall 
recognize and perform its contract. With sardonic smile Russia answers: "Not yet." 
A nation is but an individual written large. Imagine the patience of a creditor who 
for 30 years waits upon his debtor and pleads with him at his home for the payment 
of his debt. The average man would be tempted, under such circumstances, long 
before the lapse of 30 years, to take such proceedings as would reverse the process 
and lead his debtor not only to ask for leniency, but to make ample amends. 

Does this mean that we should go to war with Russia? Certainly not. War is 
abhorrent to us. It is brutal, inhuman, cruel. Its horrors fall upon the innocent. 
Its effects are felt by the entire universe. The mission of America, as well as of Israel, 
is peace. But there is a simpler, an easier, and an equally effective method of dealing 
with a nation that insults another; the same method to which a self-respecting civil- 
ized man resorts when he is insulted. He does not shoot. He does not commit an 
assault. He merely ceases to have further relations with the individual who has 
disregarded the amenities of life. And so with nations. It is within the power of a 
country situated as ours is, to isolate Russia and to terminate all treaty relations with 
a Government which fails to recognize the solemnity and the sanctity of its treaty 
obligations, and that is exactly what should be done without further delay. 

As long ago as on September 14, 1908, this very plan was advocated in an editorial 
which appeared in the Cincinnati Times-Star, in which it was said: 

"The Republican Party is thus pledged to grant relief from the intolerable condi- 
tions which now prevail, which prove a constant soiuce of irritation, which involve 
the infliction of a perpetual insult upon every self-respecting American citizen, 
which lead to a disregard of that comity which we have always extended to other 
nations, and which can not do otherwise than result in injurious discrimination against 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 271 

our commerce and the impairment of our national dignity. What can be done to 
remedy these evils is a question which has been frequently asked. If Russia con- 
tinues to avail herself of the benefits of the treaty of 1832, and of the extradition 
treaty between the two countries, it is a matter worth earnest consideration whether 
our Government should not denounce both of the existing treaties, as it has the right 
to do, because of Russia's disregard of the American passport. Conditions in Russia 
are such that she would hardly regard with indifference such action by a Government 
which is a world power. The time would seem at hand for insistence. American 
citizenship can no longer be held so cheap that it can at will be disregarded or ignored. 
The Republican Party has pledged itself to this principle, and it may be safely relied 
upon to redeem its promises." 

Can the remedy thus indicated be pursued? There is nothing in the law of nations 
to prevent it. By the express terms of Article XII of the treaty of 1832 it is provided: 

"The present treaty * * * shall continue in force until the 1st day of January 
in the year of our Lord 1839, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting 
parties shall not have announced to the other by an official notification its intention to 
arrest the operation thereof, this treaty shall remain obligatory one year beyond that 
day, and so on until the expiration of the year, which shall commence after the date of 
a similar notification." 

In other words, the treaty is terminable on one year's notice. So long as this com- 
pact is treated by Russia as devoid of mutuality; so long as it denies to it the element 
of reciprocity, which is written all over it, we might as well be without a treaty as to be 
subjected to the constant humiliation, irritation, and exasperation attendant upon its 
continuous violation. This treaty has become both a farce and a tragedy. Let the 
note be sounded: "La comedia e finita." 

There is another treaty between the United States and Russia — the extradition 
convention concluded March 23, 1887, and proclaimed June 5, 1893. Under this 
Russia has sought from time to time to extradite political offenders — Pouren and 
Rudowitz among others. All of the benefits of this treaty rest Avith Russia. It may 
well be doubted whether there has been any time when our country has had occasion 
to avail itself of its terms. This treaty also makes provision for its termination. "It 
shall remain in force for six months after notice of its termination shall have been given 
by either of the contracting parties." 

Independently of these express provisions admitting of the cessation of treaty rela- 
tions between the two countries, it is a recognized doctrine of international law that, 
under conditions precisely like those which have been described, the abrogation of a 
treaty, even though it contains no provision for its termination, is justifiable. 

In Hall on International Law (4th ed., pp. 367-369) the author says: 

"It is obviously an implied condition of the obligatory force of every international 
contract that it shall be observed by both of the parties to it. In organized communi- 
ties it is settled by municipal law whether a contract which has been broken shall be 
enforced or annulled; but internationally, as no superior coercive power exists, and as 
enforcement is not always convenient or practicable to the injured party, the individ- 
ual State must be allowed in all cases to enforce or annul for itself as it may choose. 
The general rule, then, is clear, that a treaty which has been broken by one of the parties 
to it is not binding upon the other, through the fact itself of the breach, and without 
reference to any kind of tribunal. * * * Some authorities hold that the stipulations 
of a treaty are inseparable, and consequently that they stand and fall together; others 
distinguish between principal and secondary articles, regarding infractions of the 
principal articles only as destructive of the binding force of a treaty. Both views are 
open to objection." 

"It may be urged against the former that there are many treaties of which slight 
infractions may take place without any essential part being touched; that some of 
their stipulations which were originally important may cease to be so owing to the altera- 
tion in circumstances, and that to allow States to repudiate the entirety of a contract 
upon the ground of such infringements is to give an advantage to those who may be 
inclined to play fast and loose with their serious engagements. On the other hand, it 
is true that every promise made by one party in a treaty may go to make up the con- 
sideration in return for which essential parts of an agreement are conceded or under- 
taken, and that it is not for one contracting party to determine what is or is not essential 
in the eyes of the other. * * * All that can be done is to try to find a test which 
shall enable a candid man to judge whether the right of repudiating a treaty has arisen 
in a given case. Such a test may be found in the main object of a treaty. There can 
be no question that the breach of a stipulation which is material to the main object, 
or if there are several, to one of the main objects, liberates the party other than that 
committing the breach from the obligations of the contract." 

The article of the treaty of 1832 which has been violated by Russia is the one which 
was the main object of that treaty — the clause which was given precedence over all 

21270—11 18 



272 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

others, the very basis and foundation on which all other provisions contained in the 
document rest. It is not necessary, therefore, to resort to fine distinctions or to indulge 
in close analysis for the purpose of ascertaining whether the test laid down in this and 
other authorities has been met. The stipulation which has been broken is not only 
material to the main object, but was and is the main object of the treaty. 

But it may be argued that the suspension of commercial relations between the two 
countries may hurt our trade. I have a higher opinion of the American people than 
to believe that they are so destitute of ideahsm, so devoid of a sense of honor, as to 
regard a matter of this supreme importance with the eyes and souls of mere shopkeep- 
ers. However extensive our trade with Russia might be, we could well afford to 
jeopardize it rather than to have it said that our country rates the dollar higher than 
it does the man; that it esteems the volume of its trade more than its national dignity. 

After all, the export trade of the United States with Russia does not much exceed 
$18,000,000 per annum. What is that to a nation the products of whose soil during 
the past year amounted to nearly 19,000,000,000? Should we then lose all of this com- 
merce, om- national prosperity would not be perceptibly affected. 

It may also be said that Russia is about to engage in large undertakings which will 
enlist American capital, the development of mines, the construction of storehouses 
for grain, the building of railroads, and that we are imperiling such enterprises by 
denouncing our existing treaties mth Russia. But what of that? Is it not better 
that we may know in advance what the attitude of Russia is to be toward American 
citizens before they invest their capital for the development of the resources of Rus- 
sia than to lodge complaints after the capital has been invested and promises have 
been broken? And after all there are still opportunities in the United States for the 
profitable employment of adequate capital for the promotion of our own industries, 
and Central and South America still offer promising fields for the investor. 

There are others who will prate of the historic friendship of Russia for America, 
and the tale will be retold of what Russia did for us during the Revolutionary War 
and during the Civil War. That fable has been thoroughly analyzed and the real 
facts have been demonstrated. But assuming that in the past we may have profited 
from Russia's attitude, who is so credulous as to believe that the land of the Czars, 
the country of absolutism, has been so enamored of freedom, of constitutional gov- 
ernment, of democracy or of republicanism, as to have acted either from love of us 
or of our institutions? Whenever Russia has acted, it has been simply and solely 
for political expediency. 

But let us assume that Russia has from any motive whatsoever extended to us 
offices of friendship. Have we not fully requited all of its kindnesses? Was it not 
through the intervention of President Roosevelt that Russia was extricated from one 
of the bloodiest and most disastrous wars known to history? The account between 
the two countries has been fully balanced so far as political favors are concerned. 

But there still remains a long account against Russia of broken promises, of violated 
obligations, of a compact contemned and disregarded, of dishonor inflicted upon our 
country and its citizens, and unless the virtue of manhood has deserted this Republic 
its citizens will no longer patiently witness the mockery of diplomatic procedure, 
tout will insist on a complete abrogation of every treaty now existing between the 
Ujaited States and Russia. 



Appendix 3. 

-teemination op treaty between the united states and russia. 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

Thursday, February 16, 1911. 

The committee this day met, Hon. David J. Foster (chairman), presiding. 
The Chairman. Although we have not a quorum, Mr. Parsons, unless you have 
■some objection, we will proceed, as the hearing will be printed. 
Mr. Parsons. I shall be very glad to proceed at once. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT PARSONS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK. 

Mr. Parsons. I appear in behalf of House joint resolution No. 284, introduced by 
me, providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States of American 
and Russia, concluded at St. Petersburg, December 18, 1832. I will read the reso- 
lution: 

'^ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That it is, and always has been, a fundamental principle of 



TBEMIKATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 273 

this Government that the rights of its citizens shall not be impaired at home or abroad 
because of religious belief; that this Government concludes its treaties for the equal 
protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to religious belief; that this 
Government will not negotiate nor be a party to any treaty which discriminates, or 
which by one of the parties thereto is construed to discriminate, between American 
citizens on the ground of religious belief; that the Government of Russia has violated 
the treaty between the United States of American and Russia concluded at Saint 
Petersburg, December eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, by construing 
that part of Article I thereof which says that the inhabitants of the respective States 
'shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories in 
order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security 
and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition of their 
submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regu- 
lations in force concerning commerce,' to mean" — 

That is, Russia has violated the treaty by construing that clause to mean — 
"that American citizens of Jewish faith are subject in Russia to the same class restric- 
tions that Russia imposes upon Russian inhabitants of Jewish faith, by declining to 
permit American citizens of Jewish faith to sojourn and reside in Russia in order to 
attend to their affairs and to enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as 
non-Jewish native Russians, and by refusing to honor American passports issued to 
American citizens of Jewish faith; that in the judgment of the Congress the said 
treaty, for the reasons aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time 
and be no longer in force; and that to this end the President be, and he hereby is, 
directed to give notice to the Government of Russia that the treaty aforesaid will 
terminate and be of no force and effect upon the expiration of the year which shall 
commence after the date of such notification." 

This treaty is a treaty of commerce and navigation with Russia, and it is to be found 
in the recent publication. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols, and 
Agreements, Volume II, on page 1514 and following. 

******* 

The two substantial treaties we have are this treaty of commerce and navigation 
agreed to in 1832 and the treaty of extradition agreed to in 1887. Of the other treaties, 
the first was a convention as to the Pacific Ocean and northwest coast of America; 
then came the treaty of 1832; then in 1854 there was a convention as to rights of 
neutrals at sea, which I think was the same convention as was entered into with other 
nations; then in 1867 there was the convention ceding Alaska; then in 1868 an addi- 
tional article to the treaty of commerce of 1832, concerning trade-marks; then in 1874 
a trade-mark declaration; then in 1884 a declaration concerning the admeasurement 
of vessels; then comes the extradition convention of 1887; then in 1894 an agreement 
for a modus vivendi in relation to the fur-seal fisheries in Bering Sea and the North 
Pacific Ocean; than in 1900 a claims protocol; then in 1904 an agreement regulating 
the position of corporations and other commercial associations; and then in 1906 an 
agreement by letter in regard to the protection of trade-marks in China. So that the 
only substantial treaties are this treaty of commerce and navigation and the extradition 
treaty, and possibly this agreement of 1904 in regard to the position of corporations 
and other commercial associations. 

******* 

This treatjr of 1832 was made at a time when our merchant marine amounted to more 
than it does in these days, and therefore a great many of its provisions are practically 
obsolete. Article I is the article referred to in the resolution, and that is the article 
that gives freedom of commerce and navigation and protects the rights of the inhab- 
itants of the respective States to sojourn in other States. Article X relates to the 
estates of deceased persons and has been claimed by some to be of some importance. 
The treaty also contains the most-favored-nation clause, but I take it that even if the 
treaty was abrogated we would not lose the benefits of the most-favored-nation clause, 
because we still have the maximum provision of the Payne law to hold over Russia 
in case Russia should want to claim that we were not entitled to them. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Suppose this treaty should be abrogated, what injurious effect 
would it have on Russia? 

Mr. Parsons. Absolutely none. We are a liberal, civilized Nation. We have no 
laws which discriminate against any Russian coming here, sojoiUTiing, and traveling. 
Russia would lose nothing by the abrogation of the treaty. I also think that we would 
lose nothing. We stand by principle if we abrogate it, and in view of the way in 
which Russia has construed the treaty we lose nothing, because Russia has construed 
the treaty practically to mean that Russia can pass any law she wants in regard to 
who can travel and who can sojoiu-n in Russia. Therefore she could pass a law saying 



274 TERMIIsrATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

that Members of the House of Representatives of the United States of America could 
not travel in Russia. 

******* 

Russia has placed two constructions on the treaty, first, under the last clause of 
Article I, which says: 

"The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter 
the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever foreign com- 
merce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in all parts what- 
soever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, and they shall enjoy, to 
that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the country wherein they 
reside on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, 
and particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce." 

Russia claimed, under that part of Article I, that American Jews, German Jews, and 
English Jews were subject in Russia to the class restrictions imposed by the Russian 
laws upon Russian Jews, and formerly there was a law in Russia that if a Jew belonged 
to the first guild, which means the business which pays the highest tax or made the 
highest payment for licenses to do business, then he could do business and foreign Jews 
could do business; but Russia no longer takes that position, which you see would admit 
American Jews into Russia. 

Now, Russia takes the position practically that a Jew can not go in under any treaty 
rights. I will read from the letter of Mr. Eddy, charge d'affaires, to the Secretary of 
State, dated September 15, 1908, which will be found on page 1301 of Part II, Foreign 
Relations of 1906. He is giving a statement about the situation of the Jews in Russia: 

"Foreign Jews: Those who are not Russian subjects are not permitted to enter the 
Russian Empire and there become naturalized. The right of temporary sojourning 
in Russia can only be granted by the minister of the interior or by the Russian embas- 
sies, legations, and consulates. (Law of Mar. 14, 1S91.) It is hardly necessary to 
add that Russian representatives abroad never actually give permission to foreign 
Jews to enter the Empire, even for a short time, and that such permission must be 
obtained through the ministry of the interior." 

The practical effect of that is that no American Jews can go to Russia. The State 
Department advises them that it is willing to give them a passport, but it advises them 
that the passport is no good unless the Russian consul will vise it, and he does not do 
so. "WTiether he says out and out that he will not vise, I do not know. He may say, 
"Come back several months hence," but the practical efiect is that you can not get 
it visaed. Mr. Strunsky, one of the editorial writers of the New York Evening Post, 
a man of great learning and education, sought a passport last year to go to Russia, and 
the State Department wqs willing to aid him, I think gave him a passport, but he 
could not get it Adseed. 

Mr. Bennet. I applied several times at the behest of American Jews to the 
embassy here to have passports visaed, but in every instance they refused and gave 
the Russian law as the reason. 

Mr. Flood. Is it your idea to have this treaty abrogated whether or not Russia has 
put the wrong construction upon it, or is it upon the ground that Russia has put the 
wrong construction upon the treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. I wish to have it abrogated because Russia by word and by deed has 
put the wrong construction upon it. This is nothing new, and I will call attention to 
the resolutions that have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate for many 
years in regard to it. 

Mr. Bennet. Is my colleague aware of the fact that this is not entirely a Jewish 
question, even in a limited sense, and that Russia refuses to extend to Catholic and 
Protestant missionaries in Russia the rights which are extended to the missionaries of 
the Russian Greek Chmch in the United States, and that there is pending before the 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization a resolution introduced by Mr. Shep- 
pard of Texas, based on that violation of the treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. I did not know that there was any recent communication on that 
subject, but in 1884 there was a case, which is found on page 110, Vol. IV of Moore's 
International Digest, where the American minister at Teheran, Persia, reported that 
the Russian minister there had refused to vise the passport of James Bassett, a citizen 
of the United States, who was about to leave Persia for America, on the ground that a 
Russian ordinance prohibited the vis6 of the passports of clericals imless permission 
was first obtained from St. Petersburg. Later on he did give the vis6. The American 
legation at St. Petersburg was instructed to bring the matter to the attention of the 
Russian Government, and to say that, whatever ground might exist for the establish- 
ment of such an ordinance as that described with respect to the citizens or subjects of 
other powers, it was conceived that the spirit of the treaty arrangements of the United 
States with Russia would be violated by applying it in the case of American citizens, 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832, 275 

either clergymen or laymen , whether residing in Russia or passing throiigh that country, 
so long as they did not render themselves obnoxious to good order. 

"All citizens of the United States, whatever their occupations, are," said the Depart- 
ment of State, "equal before the law of this country, and are entitled to the imdis- 
criminating protection of Russia, imder our treaty obligations, as such, for the treaty 
makes no distinction. If our citizens can sojoiu"n in Russia, it would seem that 
a fortiori they can pass through the country without hindrance, if provided with the 
passport of their Government. 

Resolutions ^ have passed one or the other branch of Congress. The first was passed 
on June 11, 1879, and it was a joint resolution. 

* * * * * -X- * 

The next resolution was one introduced by Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, which was 
reported favorably and passed the House of Representatives on June 30, 1882. 

Mr. Flood (interposing). If you will allow me to interrupt you, since I have been 
on this committee this question has been considered quite frequently, and I believe 
the entire committee is in sympathy with taking some action to protect the rights of 
gentlemen of the Jewish faith in Russia, if we can do it. What good will this par- 
ticular resolution accomplish in that line? 

Mr. Parsons. I will come to that now, if the committee does not desire to go back 
into the history of this matter. 

Mr. Flood. Of course, I am just speaking for myself, but we have considered this 
matter frequently, and I believe the whole committee is in sympathy with the pur- 
pose of doing something to relieve these gentlemen traveling in Russia or who have to 
sojourn there . 

Mr. Parsons. There are two reasons for abrogating this treaty. We have not 
accomplished anything by what has been done in the past. Various resolutions have 
passed one or the other branch of Congress and the State Department has pounded 
away at the matter for years and years. Of course, just what the situation is with 
Russia you would have to learn from the State Department, but I have followed this 
matter as closely as I can and I have been allowed to see about all the recent corre- 
spondence in the State Department. I have been through all the past correspondence 
published in the volumes on foreign relations, and I say that to-day there is absolutely 
no prospect of getting Prussia to do anything through diplomatic channels. 

Now, if we continue just parleying on the matter as we have, nothing will be 
accomplished, but we have never yet said that we are in dead earnest about it, and 
when we say to Russia that this is a matter of such vital importance to us, to a large 
element of our people and to our fundamental principles, that we are going to get rid 
of your treaty if you will not change it, then we will show Ptussia that we mean busi- 
ness. I do not say that it will lead immediately to any relief, but I believe that if, 
when Secretary Evarts and Secretary Blaine stated the fundamental principles on 
this matter as they did 30 years ago and more, if then we had abrogated the treaty, 
we would have a new treaty now, and I say that you will make one step forward 
toward a better situation by terminating the treaty than if you simply go along parley- 
ing about it. That is one reason. 

Mr. Hitchcock. How can we abrogate the treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. By a joint resolution directing the President to abrogate it. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I understand you to say, however, that the treaty is obsolete, 
so far as any benefits are concerned? 

Mr. Parsons. There may be a difference of opinion. I meant in regard to some 
of its provisions. I have not heard any discussion, and I have not been able to come 
across any material which would show whether so far as it relates to navigation it is a 
treaty of any importance. Of course, what this treaty, like all these treaties, pro- 
vides, except so far as special privileges are concerned, is international law in civ- 
ilized countries. 

Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. Supposing this resolution should be passed and 
become a law and the President and Secretary of State should notify Russia and 
abrogate this treaty, what would be the effect upon the diplomatic relations with 
Russia, generally speaking? 

Mr. Parsons. None. There would not be a particle of difference. If Russia 
chooses now to pass a law saying that Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania can not go into 
Russia and travel there, Russia can do it according to what she claims to be her 
rights. While we have this treaty, as a matter of fact, whether we get anything 
under it depends on whether Russia has chosen by her own legislation relating to 
her own internal affairs to allow us to get anything under it. Of course, Russia 

1 For the resolutions referred to by Mr. Parsons see The American Jewish Yearbook for 5670, pp. 21-37. 



276 TBEMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832, 

miglit say if we abrogated the treaty that she did not want Americana to travel there; 
but I hardly think Russia would want to take that position before the civilized 
world. 

Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. The treaty is in existence and some claim it ia 
violated. What is the use of abrogating the treaty with the idea of getting any new 
treaty if we have one already that does not accomplish the purpose? Is it a ques- 
tion of enforcing the treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. You can not enforce it. 

Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. How could you enforce any other treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. Of course, you can not enforce it; you have to rely upon the honor 
of the other side. I admit that the honor of the other side has not been much in evi- 
dence in connection with this treaty; but this is a new situation before us, a situation 
which probably was not before President Andrew Jackson when the treaty was con- 
summated, in 1832. The new treaty would not be ambiguous on this point, and 
Russia would know, if she agreed to a new treaty, just what she was bound to do, 
and therefore we could rely on her agreeing to follow out the terms of the new treaty. 

Mr. Flood. If we abrogate this treaty, do you think there would be a new treaty 
on the subject? 

Mr. Parsons. I do not know. Frankly, I doubt whether there would be imme- 
diately, but I think there will be sooner if you abrogate the treaty than if you just 
continue in the way you have, which has accomplished nothing, and there is not any- 
thing new that we can do except to abrogate the treaty. 

Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. If we had no treaty, in what condition would it leave 
the other citizens outside of those of the Jewish faith; would we have any treaty or 
diplomatic relations whatever that could be enforced, in regard to any other citizens? 

Mr. Parsons. We would be in the situation then that we are in as to any country 
with which we have no treaty as to travel. No citizen of any other country needs a 
treaty to enable him to travel in the United States, and Russia is almost the only 
country as to which you have to have a passport to enter it. Now Russia can honor 
her passport or not, in the future, treaty or no treaty, just as she has a mind to. 

The Chairman. Your idea is that Russia would dislike very much to have us abro- 
gate this treaty on the ground that we believed that she had broken the treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. Yes, sn*; and Russia would realize that our protest in the matter was 
not vain words, and if she wanted to remain on friendly terms — that is, the best terms 
with us — then, she would have to have a treaty with us, and that treaty would have 
to be in harmony with fundamental American principles; and that brings me to the 
second reason, the incontrovertible reason, in my opinion, for the abrogation of this 
treaty. 

What is the mission of the United States, unless it is to stand for certain fundamen- 
tal doctrines among mankind and in the civilized world — such as the right of freedom 
of religious belief? 

In the Constitution we provided first, in paragraph 3 of Article VI: 

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the membei's of the 
several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United 
States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this 
Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any 
office or public trust under the United States. " 

Then, the first amendment to the Constitution provided that — 

"Cong .'ess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting 
the free exercise thereof." 

Now, those extracts indicate some of our fundamental principles, namely, the right 
of freedom of religious belief and the right of American citizens to be dealt with with- 
out regard to then religious belief. 

Here we have a treaty, an agreement, which we never supposed meant that American 
citizens should be discriminated against on the ground of their religious belief, but 
which the other party thereto uses as a justification for discriminating against Ameri- 
cans on the ground of their religious belief. If we believe in the principle I have 
referred to do we show our belief when we remain tied to a treaty, the practical work- 
ing construction of which is in direct contravention of the principle? 

Mr. Cooper of Pennsylvania. I would like to ask whether or not the Jewish people 
of England and Germany are discriminated against the same as the Jewish people of 
the United States, or whether the United States is singled out for different treatment? 

Mr. Parsons. No; the United States is not singled out for different treatment, so 
far as the general matter of passports is concerned. England unsuccessfully protested 
against the construction put upon its treaty. 

I wish to call your attention to one thing to show what Congress did on an analogous 
matter, the matter of expatriation. Russia never has agreed to the principle of expa- 
triation — that is, that a Russian subject could come over here and become a natm-al- 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 277 

- ized American citizen without the consent of his own Government — and we passed 
an act of Congress, July 27, 1868, in which we set forth the fundamental principles 
about the right of expatriation, and we incorporated those in sections 1999 to 2001 
of the Revised Statues, and I will just read those because I think they show that in 
that matter we acted and would not allow any interference with our principles. 

Section 1999 of the Revised Statutes says: 

"Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, 
indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the piusuit of happi- 
ness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely 
received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship ; 
and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are 
subjects of foreign States, owing allegiance to the Governments thereof; and whereas 
it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance 
should be promptly and finally disallowed: Therefore, any declaration, instruction, 
opinion, order, or decisionof any oflficer of the United States, which denies, restricts, 
impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the funda- 
mental principles of the Republic. 

"Sec. 2000. All naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign countries, 
are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons 
and property which is accorded to native-born citizens. 

"Sec. 2001. Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the 
United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority 
of any foreign Government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand 
of that Government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrong- 
ful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship the President shall forthwith 
demand the release of such citizen; and if the release so demanded is unreasonably 
delayed or refused the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, 
as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the 
facts and proceedings relative thereto shall, as soon as practicable, be communicated 
by the President to Congress." 

We can pass a law, and this joint resolution would be a law, that embodied the 
principle involved in this matter in the law, just as we passed the law which embodied 
the principle of the right of expatriation in the law. Those are the two reasons. As 
long as we remain tied, then we are faithless to the proposition that all American 
citizens are to be treated everywhere without regard to their religious beliefs. 

Now, this is an American question, not a Jewish question. Of course, we hear about 
it from our Jewish brethern, because it is their Americanism which first feels the 
insult; but it is an insult also to the Americanism of every one of us. Suppose, for 
instance, that this discrimination was against Presbyterians, such as Brother Bennet 
and I are, do you suppose that the Presbyterians of this country would stand for a 
treaty which allowed discrimination against them on the ground of their religious 
belief? I think our Jewish brethern have been exceedingly patient and long-suffer- 
ing in this matter, and it is our blame, our shame, that nothing has been done; and 
therefore I introduced this resolution, believing that we could do something new, 
could do something affirmative, and that to speak by action where words had failed 
would pave the way to accomplishing something, and consequently that we could 
only be true to our fundamental principles of the right of American citizens to equal 
treatment at home and abroad without regard to their religious beliefs by getting rid 
of a treaty to which we were tied and which the other side said entitled it to discrimi- 
nate against American citizens on the ground of their religious belief. 

Now, I wish to submit, if I may, as a part of my remarks the resolution which was 
unanimously adopted at the meeting of the Council of the Union of American Hebrew 
Congregations, held at the Hotel Astor in the city of New York on January 19, 1911, 
and referred to the executive board for transmission to the President of the United 
States and to Congress. (See p. 54, supra.) 

In that connection I ask to have printed as a part of the hearing the address deliv- 
ered by Mr. Louis Marshall on "Russia and the American Passport," before the 
Council of American Hebrew Congregations in New York, on Thursday, January 19, 
1911, and I asked Mr. Marshall, who was one of those invited to the White House 
yesterday by the President, to forego his appointments in New York to-day and to 
appear before the committee and state his views on that matter. I know from the 
standing which Mr. Marshall has as a citizen, as a lawyer, and as a Jew, that whatever 
he says, speaking for the Jews and speaking for Americans, can be taken at its face value . 

Mr. Hitchcock. You favor the passage of this resolution even though it deprives 
Russia of no benefits whatever, and it deprives the United States of some benefits now 
derived under the existing treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. I would. I think it is a question of the rights of man against any 
other rights that may be involved here, and they would be only commercial rights, and 



278 TEKMINATIOlSr OF THE TEBATY OF 1832. 

I think this is a test whether we are going to be true to our best traditions or whether 
we are not. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I take it from what you say that you think the effect will only be a 
moral effect and that Russia will not really lose anything by the abrogation of this 
treaty? 

Mr. Parsons. But in the course of time, as civilization advances and as liberalism 
grows in Russia, there is bound to be a new condition of affairs. The time will cer- 
tainly come when American Jews will be allowed to travel in Russia. It will come 
sooner if we make the demand, and make it by saying that we will not be a party to any 
treaty which does not entitle them to equal treatment. 

Mr. Flood. How long have the Jewish people been discriminated against? 

Mr. Marshall. Thirty years. 

Mr. Parsons. It is longer than that. Secretary Blaine, in an elaborate letter that 
he wrote to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, on July 29, 1881, said: "From this time 
down," he gives a history of the attitude of Russia toward the Jews, showing that in 
the reign of Catherine the Jews were invited to come into Russia.. "From this time 
down," he refers to the time from 1817 down to 1860, "I can find no trace of the enforce- 
ment, especially against American citizens, of the restrictions against Jewish travel and 
residence which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia was signed." 

Russia has claimed that she had restrictions against the Jews in 1832, when the 
treaty was signed. 

Secretary Blaine goes on: 

"It is a significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on private 
international law, writing during this period upon the legislation of all Europe as 
affecting the persons and rights of aliens, make no reference to such disabilities." 

Then he goes on and calls attention to the case of Theodore Rosenstrauss, which 
started by a letter from Mr. Jewell, our minister to Russia, December 15, 1873; so the 
controversy dates back to then. 

I would like to read just what Secretary of State Blaine said: 

"I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United States 
concludes its treaties with foreign states for the equal protection of all classes of Ameri- 
can citizens. It can make absolutely no discrimination between thein, whatever be 
their origin or creed." 

And he says, quoting the President — he is writing this letter to Mr. Foster, our 
minister: 

"That if, after a frank comparison of the views of the two Governments, in the 
most amicable spirit and with the most earnest desire to reach a mutually agreeable 
conclusion, the treaty stipulations between the United States and Russia are found 
insufficient to determine questions of nationality and tolerance of individual faith, 
or to secure to American citizens in Russia the treatment which Russians receive in the 
United States, it is simply due to the good relations of the two countries that these 
stipulations should be made sufficient m these regards; and that we can look for no 
clearer evidence of the good will which Russia professes toward us than a frank dec- 
laration of her readiness to come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an 
earnest and generous spirit." 

That was written very nearly 30 years ago, and he says further: 

"You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia nor 
accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall discriminate against any 
class of American citizens on account of their religious faith." 

I will be glad to answer any further questions which may suggest themselves, if I 
am able to. 

Mr. Ames. Do you know whether other countries have similar treaties with Russia, 
alons: the same lines that we have? 

Mr. Parsons. In our diplomatic correspondence it is stated in one place that this 
same Article I exists in Russia's treaties with Germany and England, and in another 
place the correspondence says that their treaty stipulations are not as favorable on the 
subject as ours are. I have heard it suggested, but about this I am not sure, that to-day 
Russia allows rich German Jewish bankers to go into Russia, but as to whether that is 
so or not I can not speak with any authority. I inquired at the State Department 
and was told that they did not know that to be a fact. 

Mr. LowDEN. The charge is that they do not simply discriminate against people 
of the Jewish faith who were once their subjects, but also against people who were 
never their subjects? 

Mr. Parsons. Exactly. Herman Rosenstrauss, whose case arose in 1882, was a 
native of Wurttemberg, and so I suppose was his brother, whose case arosein 1873. 
It does not make any difference where they come from, they are all discriminated 
against. 

Mr. LowDEN. That is a clear violation of the treaty? 



TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 279 

Mr. Parsons. Yes, sir. , 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. They stop them at the frontier? 

Mr. Parsons. Yes, sir; they stop them at the frontier. Of course you can not 
go into Russia unless your passport is viseed before you reach the frontier, and you 
can not get your passport viseed. The result is that when you get to the frontier 
you come back, if you are foolish enough to start. There is one instance in the cor- 
respondence where they expelled an American Jew from St. Petersburg and he tried 
to get out of Russia, and they said that while he was expelled from St. Petersburg he 
could not get out of Russia unless his passport was viseed. 

Mr. LowDEN. Of course, the Russian Government has never admitted the right of 
expatriation? 

Mr. Parsons. That is an interesting matter. I understand that the situation 
in regard to that in Russia is that in the new penal code which was enacted in 1903 
expatriation is no longer treated as a crime, but that no edict of the Czar has yet been 
promulgated which brings into effect that portion of the new code. Now, I do not 
know just how they do things there, but a Russian lawyer, now an American citi- 
zen, who follows those things very closely, gave me the foregoing as the facts. Thus 
Russia has not yet acknowledged the right of expatriation, but has come very close 
to it. The document on citizenship published a few years ago by the State Depart- 
ment said that Russia did not recognize the right of expatriation. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LOUIS MARSHALL, NEW YORK, N. Y. 

Mr. Marshall. First of all, I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation 
to Mr. Parsons for what he has done in this matter. It is a fine exhibition of American 
citizenship, and I am sure that the members of the committee, when they come to 
consider the question in its entirety, the history of it, and what it means — not to 
the Jews, but to the entire American people — will be rejoiced at the fact that Mr. Par- 
sons has had the patriotism to present this resolution for their consideration. 

I am a Jew by religion. I am one of 2,000,000 Jews who live in this country, but 
I would not raise my voice for an instant in the Halls of Congress for the purpose of 
asking any special favors to the Jewish people. My only reason for coming here is 
because I am an American citizen, and because I glory in that citizenship, I desire 
that there shall be no taint or stain inflicted upon its integrity. 

Mr. Parsons has well said that this is not a Jewish question; it is an American ques- 
tion. I should deplore the day when there should ever arise a Jewish, a Catholic, or 
a Protestant question in the United States. We can never suffer any questions here 
concerning individual rights but such as relate to the entire American people. The 
resolutions which have been read here were adopted at the council of the union of 
American Hebrew congregations held in the city of New York in January last. They 
sound no Jewish note. They were not passed because the members of the council 
spokeas representatives of the Jews, but because, gathered as they were as a body of 
American citizens, they sought merely to call attention to a grievance which had 
been inflicted, not upon them, but upon the entire American people. 

Let us see what the situation is. In 1832 our Government, then not so powerful 
as it is to-day, entered into a treaty with the Russian Government, a treaty of com- 
merce and navigation, a treaty which was intended to give a mutuality of rights to 
the people of the two countries in each other's territory. That treaty was a contract; 
it was not a unilateral contract, but throughout its provisions, and especially in the 
first article, there breathes but one thought — that of the mutuality of obligation and 
of right. The two nations are spoken of as the "high contracting parties." There 
can be no such thing as a contract except one based upon the mutuality of right and of 
consideration. In that clause occurs also the expression which has now become 
music to our ears — the idea of reciprocity. It is stated to be a reciprocal binding 
agreement between the two nations. 

It is inconceivable that the United States of America should have entered into a 
contract with another nation upon the theory that it was giving everything and 
receiving nothing; that it was giving to Russian citizens the right to travel and sojourn 
in United States territory, whereas American citizens were to have that right minus; 
that they were to .have that right with respect to a certain portion of the American 
people but not as to all; that the right was to be conferred upon those who were of 
one faith, but not upon those who were of other faiths. It is impossible to believe 
that an exception was written into that treaty by the hand of James Buchanan, who 
was then the minister plenipotentiary at the court of St. Petersburg, who negotiated 
it, or that it was adopted by the Senate of the United States, that the rights conferred 
should exist in favor of all citizens of the United States except its citizens of the 
Jewish faith. If such a proposition were made to-day- — were a new treaty to be entered 



280 TEKMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

into with Russia — there is not one Member of the Senate who would not stand aghast 
at the suggestion, nor would there be a single Member of the House whose blood 
would not boil with indignation at the very thought. 

Mr. Hitchcock. May I submit a question? 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Suppose Manchuria should become a part of Russia and the citizens 
of Manchuria should become Russian citizens, what right would we have to exclude 
them? 

Mr. Marshall. We would have no right to exclude the citizens of Manchuria who 
were to come to this country for temporary travel and sojourn. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Although Mongolians? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. TJnder our treaty with China we recognize the right of 
merchants to come to this country to trade and conduct business, those who come with 

{)assports. Our Chinese-exclusion act only relates to those who come to this country 
or the purpose of making it their home. 

Mr. Cooper. We discriminate against them because of their different race. This 
is a different religion. Our Constitution says nothing about the race, but we can not 
make any discrimination against different religions. 

Mr. Marshall. I wish to say in that connection that there are some Jews who say 
they are Jews because of race. I am not one of those to whom the racial idea is of 
importance. I do not know what "race" means, and I defy anybody to tell me what 
is the accurate meaning of "race." The modern writers on ethnology have subdi- 
vided the people of the earth into some 70 different races. The old idea of Blumen- 
bach that there are only five races has been long since exploded. But my brethren 
are all Jews by religion. This exclusion from Russia of American Jews, as stated in 
a recent dispatch, is based entirely on the theory of a religious test, not of a racial test. 

Mr. Parsons. May I suggest that they ask the question, "What is your religion?" 

Mr. Marshall. And not "What is your race?" 

Mr. Bennet. And an American-born Jew has many less rights in Russia than a 
Chinese merchant has in the United States. 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. 

Mr. Bennet. He can not eriter the door. 

Mr. Marshall. If you want instances, I can multiply instances which will satisfy 
you on that point. 

Mr. Parsons. May I suggest, in answer to the question by Mr. Hitchcock, that this 
question of the right to travel should not be* confounded with the question of the right 
of immigration? 

Mr. Marshall. Not at all. 

Mr. Parsons. We admit that every country has the right to say who shall come there 
to live, but all civilized countries admit those who are travelers to come and travel in 
their country. 

Mr. Marshall. That only relates to temporary sojourn. It does not refer to resi- 
dence, not to the right of permanent immigration. That is entirely beside this ques- 
tion. This is wholly a question of our rights under a treaty which makes no exception 
of any class of people based on race or creed or religion to travel and sojourn in Russia, 
the exclusion of these people being frankly stated by Russia to be on the ground of 
religion. I do not like to consider personal matters, but will nevertheless do so for 
purposes of illustration. 

I was born in this country, my wife was bom here, her mother was bom here; my 
children were bom in this country. My parents and my wife's father were bom in 
Germany. None of us, so far as I have any trace, has ever placed a foot on Russian 
soil. If my children should desire to-morrow, for purposes of business or for any other 
legitimate object, to visit Russia they would go to the State Department of the United 
States and there receive a passport, bearing the great seal of the United States, certi- 
fying to their citizenship and to. their equality before the law of the United States. 
Yet they would be warned that "even though this passport is extended to you, and the 
flag of our country is supposed to be your aegis of protection, you must first secure the 
vise to this passport from the Russian ambassador or from some Russian consul." If 
my sons should then call on the Russian representative, the first question that would 
be asked of them would be, "What is your religion?" If they should answer, as I 
hope they and their descendants may for generations to come, "I am a Jew by religion," 
they would be told : ' ' You can not enter Russia, although the United States of America 
certifies to your loyalty as a citizen, although your parents for two generations have 
been Americans and have sought to do their duty to their country, you can not enter 
the door of Russia." And if my son should point to this treaty, the Government of the 
United States would say, as it is bound to say, and as has been said by the lips of some 
of the greatest statesmen who have been in charge of its affairs of state: " It is true that 
this treaty makes no exception which excludes you from its benefits. It is true that 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 281 

Russia has made a contract with us which is mutual and reciprocal in its obligations 
and which gives the right of sojourn and travel in Russia to any and all American 
citizens, yet we are powerless to act. While this treaty that gives you this right has 
been broken and flouted and dishonored by Russia, we must nevertheless swallow the 
insult, and you, with thousands of others who have gone before you, and who will 
follow you, who have asked the unqualified enjoyment of the rights held by you in 
common with all American citizens, must continue to bear the sufferings which it has 
been the fate of your people to bear from generation to generation. Russia's insults 
must be borne in patience. We must rely on its magnanimity." 

Although it is of no possible importance, still it can be shown that Russia's attitude 
affects our country commercially, if it is proper to discuss commerce in this connec- 
tion. _ Mr. Horowitz is president of the Thompson-Starrett Co., one of the greatest 
building companies in the United States. At the age of 35 years, by his energy and 
intelligence, he has attained that high position. That company, under his super- 
vision, built the magnificent Pennsylvania Station, which is an ornament to this city. 

A few years ago, learning that the Russian Government was about to build a similar 
station ia St. Petersburg, his company thought that it might be desirable for him to 
go to Russia to make an investigation in order, if possible, to obtain the contract. 
He applied to the State Departnient for a passport and received it. He then asked 
Judge Penfield, one of the distinguished lawyers of this city, to procure the approval 
of that passport from the Russian ambassador at Washington, it being necessary for 
him in the meantime to go to England to attend to business which he had there. 
The representative of the Russian Government, although he learned of the purpose 
of Mr. Horowitz, set his face against the granting of the passport, with the consequence 
that American trade and industry was indirectly affected by the exclusion of this 
estimable gentleman. I could poiat out for a day similar instances, but I prefer to 
plant myself upon the higher considerations which affect this question — on the senti- 
mental considerations. It "would be a sorry day for this country if wholesome senti- 
ment should cease to control in matters of this kind, and when we would have to 
regard the right of citizenship from the hard, material, commercial side or from the 
standpoint of mere expediency. 

There has been but one interpretation placed upon this treaty by the United States 
from the beginning. It is impossible to give it any interpretation other than that 
which we have given to it, namely, that there can be no discrimination as against 
any class of American citizens, nor, in fact, any classification of citizens. It cannot 
be done without a serious reflection upon the honor of our country and without involv- 
ing the great charge that the Government of the United States, in permitting or regard- 
ing such discrimination with equanimity, becomes a party to an unconstitutional 
agreement — one based on a distinction as to creed; one based upon a religious test, 
and I shudder at the thought that such a consideration should ever enter the mind of 
any member of our Government. 

The general rules of interpretation applicable to treaties are well known and are 
settled bv the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Justice Field, in Geofro-v v. 
Riggs (133 U. S., 271), says: 

_ "It is a general principle of construction with respect to treaties that they shall be 
liberally construed, so as to carry out the apparent intention of the parties to secure 
equality and reciprocity between them. As they are contracts between independent 
nations, in their construction words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning as 
understood in the public law of nations, and not in any artificial or special sense 
impressed upon them by local law unless such restricted sense is clearly intended. 
And it has been held by this court that where a treaty admits of two constructions, 
one restrictive of rights that may be claimed under it and the other favorable to them, 
the latter is to be preferred." 

Treaties, as said also by the Supreme Court of the United States in Tucker v. Alexan- 
droff (183 U. S., 424), are to be considered as governed by the doctrine of uberrima 
fides, as proceeding on the utmost good faith and as based on the honor of the contract- 
ing parties. 

We of the United States look at this treaty with our eyes and not with Russian eyes. 
We are to construe it as we must have understood it and should understand it. We 
must read it without implanting upon it an exception which would involve disgrace 
upon our country. We must give to it that favorable interpretation which the Consti- 
tution requires that all members of the State must be treated alike without any excep- 
tions in favor or against any of them. That interpretation of the courts has been the 
interpretation placed by both of the great political parties of this country upon this 
very treaty. They have spoken upon it time and again in their platforms, which rec- 
ognize the existence of a great grievance — one of sufficient importance to challenge the 
attention of the voters of the Nation. The only occasion for writing these clauses into 



282 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

the two platforms of the great political parties, both in 1904 and 1908, was this mooted 
question of the Russian disregard of its treaty — -of the stain placed by it on American 
citizenship. 

* ■ * * * * * * 

When both political parties are in accord on this question and have both recognized 
the necessity of action to heal this one sore spot in the relations of our Nation with other 
countries, it is time for the House of Representatives to speak upon that subject in no 
uncertain tone. It ceases to be a question affecting the Jews of this country, because 
when one citizen is insulted by a foreign nation each of the 90,000,000 of our people is 
equally insulted . The insult is not reflected on individuals, but it is imposed on every 
member of the Nation. If your wife or your son is insulted, you consider the insult as 
aimed and leveled at you. If your State, if your country, if your city is insulted, you 
take umbrage at it, not personally, but as a citizen of the community to which you 
belong. And so I say that if discrimination is indulged in against any members of the 
State on account of their faith, the real injury is an injury inflicted upon American 
citizenship and not upon the individual, he sinks into insignificance. 

Mr. Parsons has well said that if this question related to an insult to a Presbyterian, 
you would simply feel that an insult had been inflicted not upon the Presbyterian as 
such, but upon him as a representative, as a part, of the American people. The same 
would be true with regard to a Catholic, or a Methodist, or an Episcopalian, a man of 
any other faith, or a man of no faith. In fact, Russia is now disregarding the passports 
of Catholic priests who are citizens of the United States. If in the United States we 
should discriminate against a Greek Catholic who is a citizen of Russia, the wrong 
would be inflicted upon the Russian people. If Russia should say that no ma^n who 
is a resident of the State of Virginia, or of the State of New York, or who resides east 
of the Mississippi or west of the Mississippi, or north or south of the Ohio River, should 
be admitted into Russia, we would not consider such action as affecting the East or 
the West, the North or the South. We would treat it as an insult inflicted upon the 
entire body of American citizens. 

I do not suppose, therefore, that any Member of the House of Representatives would 
for a moment consider this as a subject which especially concerns the Jew. He must 
deal with it as one which concerns every part and every section of our body politic. 

Shall this state of affairs continue? Shall we allow this treaty to be disregarded in 
the future as it has been in the past? Shall the House of Representatives say, "We 
will continue to make diplomatic representations to Russia; possibly something may 
come of it?" Why, these diplomatic negotiations have been going on actively for the 
last 30 years. Even in the days when Grover Cleveland was President of the United 
States, in one of his messages to Congress he declared that the conditions which then 
existed were intolerable; and yet we continue to tolerate them. Mr. Blaine, in 1881, 
used the language which has been read by Mr. Parsons, and in that same note, which 
he addressed to Mr. Foster, he said: 

"From the time when the Treaty of 1832 was signed, down to a very recent period, 
there has been nothing in our relations with Russia to lead to a supposition that our 
flag did not carry with it equal protection to every American citizen within the 
domain of the Empire." 

That forceful statesman then said that we must take immediate action to prevent 
the continuance of the abuse, which was then about to assume an acute form. He 
was followed by Mr. Olney on the same lines, and he in turn was followed by one 
statesman after another, who reiterated the same proposition; and thus for 30 years 
these negotiations have been going on, and we have not advanced one step. Adminis- 
tration follows administration in the thorny path of diplomacy. They all begin with 
the earnest desire of securing relief, but they are speedily sidetracked. Russia is 
persistent in setting its face against a recognition of this treaty, and in the meantime 
is working up a statute of limitations in favor of itself. It is beginning to argue, ' ' You 
have been silent for so many years. Rights have in the meantime accrued under this 
treaty as construed by us. It is now too late to make a change without endangering 
certain interests." A statute of limitations against the honor of American citizenship. 
Well, we have tried and we have tried negotiations of a diplomatic nature, and those 
negotiations will proceed until the crack of doom, and no impression will be made 
upon the impervious cuticle of the Russian statesmen who have these negotiations 
in charge. I prophesy that we will continue these negotiations interminably, and 
that with each year the conscience of America on this subject will grow fainter and 
fainter, until gradually we will read into this treaty an acquiescence in the Russian 
doctrine of discrimination among citizens and of a discrimination against men by 
reason of their faith. The only remedy lies in the abrogation of the treaty. 

Mi'. Cooper of Wisconsin. Mr. Marshall, let me ask you one question. As I under- 
stand it, yom* desire is now that this treaty be by Congress immediately abrogated? 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 283 

Mr. Marshall. Instantly; that is, according to the terms of the treaty, that notice 
be given. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. One year's notice? 

Mr. Marshall. One year's notice. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Then after that has happened do you desire that nego- 
tiations shall be undertaken? 

Mr. Marshall. I shall be very glad to see the department negotiate a new treaty. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Is it your hope that this protest, attracting, as it would, 
world-wide attention to what is considei'ed in civilized countries everywhere to-day 
an outrage, would arouse a world-wide public opinion? 

Mr. Marshall. It would inevitably do so. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. And the greatest force in the world to-day is 

Mr. Marshall. Public opinion. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Public opinion? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; precisely — public opinion. We feel that if the voice of 
America is once more raised in favor of human rights, of equality of all men before 
the law, then it will become known that American public opinion can not be Rus- 
sianized, and that Russia will have to respond to that call as much as any nation in 
the world. 

Mr. Ames. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Marshall a question. Do you 
feel that in abrogating this treaty we would pierce the epidermis of the Russian states- 
men at all? 

Mr. Marshall. Morally, yes; because even Russia can not withstand the public 
opinion of the world when directed against her. 

Mr. Ames. As a practical proposition, do you not think it would be more efficacious 
if there were a rider attached to the maximum and minimum clause of our tariff, if 
that could be done, making that a matter of commercial interest to Russia, and that 
they would be more likely to feel that pressure than to feel the pressure of public 
opinion? 

Mr. Marshall. That may be another step. Mr. Parsons and I disagree in one 
particular. I have asked from time to time, and I have asked in this address which 
has been read into your record, that every treaty with Russia should instantly cease, 
both the treaty of 1832 and the treaty of 1887, with reference to extradition, under 
which treaty JRussia certainly reaps benefits while we have a comparatively small 
interest in it. Under the treaty of 1887 Russia has been reaching out its hand across 
the water for the purpose of seizing political offendecgand taking them to Russia. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. Let me suggest right herelhat the proposition advanced 
by Mr. Ames, if it v/ere adopted, would amount to saying to the world this: "You 
now exclude men because of their religious faith. If you keep on doing that, we 
will put up a high tariff against you." 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Cooper of Wisconsin. And Russia will say, "All right; put up your high tariff. 
We will keep on excluding them." Then it amounts to this, that we are willing to 
place ourselves in the position of putting the dollar above the man. 

Mr. Marshall. I am very glad to hear that expression, because 

Mr. Parsons. May I just make an answer to that, too, which will cover the question 
as to what the effect will be? 

Our principal imports from Russia are furs, and they come in — a large measure of 
our impo/ts come in — free of duty. I am afraid that we would be biting off our noses 
to spite oiu" faces if we put a clause in the tariff to seek to reach the object in that way. 
If you wish, I can just briefly give you some figures as to what the effect would be. 
Incidentally, I would say that Russia would be harmed commercially by the abroga- 
tion of the treaty, if she interpreted that to mean that thereby we had lost the most- 
favored-nation rights, because then the retaliatory clause of the Payne law would come 
into effect, and her $9,000,000 of free imports — that is what they amounted to in 1909— 
would have to pay a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem, and the $2,000,000 of her dutiable 
imports would have to pay an additional daty of 25 per cent ad valorem. 

Mr. Ames. Would it not create a class of men in Russia who would be anxious to 
see the treaty lived up to? As it is, who is there in Russia who is primarily interested 
in seeing that the provisions are lived up to? 

Mr. Parsons. Well, there is a great liberal element in Russia at the present time, 
somewhat submerged, but bound to have its voice heard some time, and Russia can 
not withstand the pressure of public opinion from a great country like the United 
States on a matter which involves human rights, because the pressure from within 
would become dangerous. 

Mr. Bennet. After the massacre of Bialystock this Congress, on a resolution intro- 
duced by the late Senator McLaurin, and put through the Congress, deplored the fact 



284 TEEMIISTATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

of the massacres of Bialystock and Sedlitz, and I am not sure that there has ever been 
a major pogrom in Russia since. The British Parliament also followed that, and I 
think the highest legislative body of one other European Government; so that there 
is a liberal sentiment in Russia which is reached by actions such as this. 

Mr. Marshall. Not only that, but there is selfish interest on the part of Russia in 
that respect. Russia does not wish to be isolated from the rest of the world. 

Mr. Parsons. If you wish to realize the spirit that pervades a large element of the 
Russian people — the non-Jewish element — ^in favor of more liberal treatment of the 
Jews, read a very remarkable book — ^remarkable when you consider the surround- 
ings — that came out a few years ago, called "The Memoirs of a Russian Governor," 
in which this member of the nobility sent down to Bessarabia, Prince Urussof , gives 
an account of what took place there, and he tells everything except what the Czar 
said to him before he went down, and there is not much difficulty in implying from 
the context what the Czar did say to him. Now, that is an illustration of the kind of 
people there are, and of what the Government there has to tolerate from public opin- 
ion within her borders, and she is always in danger of being criticised and having 
trouble made by such people, and of course they are ready to respond the instant 
they get any encomagement from the outside on the part of a nation which is asserting 
the rights of men as applied to its own citizens. 

******* 

Mr. Marshall. The question, therefore — the practical question — comes down to 
this, as I was about to say, that while I should like to see all treaties between Russia 
and America abrogated, that which Russia wishes most — the extradition treaty, as 
well as the treaty of 1832 — shall we not at least give notice of the termination of the 
treaty of 1832? 

Although nobody can say what would happen as a result of such action, and pos- 
sibly nothing might happen, still there is ground for belief that before that treaty is 
finally terminated advances would be made by Russia to meet us in solving the 
problem in which we are so greatly concerned by recognizing, in so many words, so 
that there will be no room for misinterpretation by Russia, that every citizen of the 
United States is to be placed on a basis of equality. But whether immediate results 
follow or not, one thing is certian, that Russia will not be willing to stand in a posi- 
tion of isolation, based as our action would be on the noble sentiments expressed in 
the pending resolution. It is not founded on considerations of business or of com- 
merce. It is not on any question which relates to the dollar, but, as has been well 
said by one of your number, the man is placed above the dollar, and this country 
not only raises its voice in protest, but it also raises its hand against a treaty which 
has been so interpreted by Russia as to put a taint upon American citizenship. 

If this treaty is abrogated we are not losing anything in consequence of that abro- 
gation. I do not believe that Russia will turn out anybody whom it now admits who is 
armed with an American passport because the treaty has been abrogated. If it does, 
then let us know it. Then there will be time for retaliation in other respects. Then 
we can begin to consider what we can do in the direction of reprisals. I hope the 
time will never come when that shall become necessary. I would rather have this 
country stand in tha position of saying, "Let every Russian come to the United States 
no matter who he may be, no matter what his faith, even though Russia does not 
receive a single American within its boundaries; but we shall not tolerate the idea 
of being a party to a treaty, and of recognizing as if in force a treaty which carries with 
it the imputation that we recognize any such vicious principle as Russia insists upon 
reading into it." It is in that recognition that the harm exists. We are therefore 
ten times better off, a hundr-^dfold better off, without any treaty with Russia than we 
would be with a treaty which Russia has been consistently disregarding for over 30 
years, and which not only is being disregarded by Russia, but which is insidiously 
undermining our American consciousness and the public appraisal of the value of 
American citizenship. * * * There is much more to be said on this subject. 
Mr. Parsons has kindly had my address put into your minutes, which I greatly appre- 
ciate. In that address I try dispassionately, and from the standpoint of an American 
citizen, to consider the treaty — its provisions, its interpretations, its history — and use 
arguments, some of which I have enlarged upon here, as to the consequences of an 
abrogation of the treaty. I would consider it a proud day, not for the Jews alone — ■ 
I eliminate them entirely from consideration here — but a proud day for American 
citizenship, if Congress should adopt in the words in which it has been framed, this 
resolution of Mr. Parsons. The world would once more be informed that there is some- 
thing in America which is higher than materialism; that we are still true to the ideals 
of the fathers of the Republic, and that the rights of man, as they are the foundation 
of our Government, are also the proudest jewel in its crown. 



TEBMIIsrATION OF THE TEEATY OP 1832. 285 

Mr. Parsons. Mr. Chairman, I think that all the information that the committee 
can want has been furnished. I have no doubt that there are a number of Members 
of the House who would be glad to appear and speak in behalf of the resolution, and 
I have also received notice from some societies that they would like to be heard; 
but it is toward the end of the session, and I do not want to trespass on the time of 
the committee. If the committee, however, needs any more enlightenment we will 
have plenty to furnish them. 

On February 22, 1911, Hon. Francis Burton Harrison, of New York, appeared before 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs and made the following statement: 

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear in favor 
of the Parsons resolution calling for a denunciation of the treaty of comity and com- 
merce with Russia of 1832. Gentlemen who have been on this committee in a previous 
Congress are aware that it is not a perfectly new subject, that in a resolution offered 
by Mr. Goldfogle, of New York, in the Sixtieth Congress, section 2 of that resolution 
called for a denunciation of the treaty with Russia, if it were to appear upon further 
representations by the President to Russia that we would no longer tolerate the dis- 
crimination between American citizens on the ground of religious faith, if it were to 
appear after such announcement by the President that this discrimination still con- 
tinued, thereupon the President was requested to denounce the treaty with Russia. 
I understand that the Parsons resolution calls in unqualified terms for the denuncia- 
tion of this treaty. * * * I am in favor of Mr. Parsons's resolution, that the treaty of 
1832 provided that the reciprocal rights given to the subjects of Russia and to citizens 
of the United States permitted all citizens of the United States while in Russia to 
enjoy the same rights and privileges that the subjects of Russia had. At that time, I 
think it is fair to say, there was no considerable body of Jews in the United States, 
and also it is fair to say that there were practically no persecutions of the Jews in Russia. 
In other words, the Jewish question was not a live one in 1832. It is evident to me 
from studying the history of these negotiations that the Jewish question was not in the 
minds of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty of 1832. Had it been in their 
minds, I am confident that any Secretary of State who negotiated a treaty which per- 
mitted even a misconstruction of this nature by Russia would, with his administration, 
have been driven from power with the contumely and scorn of the whole United States. 
The Russians have invented this pretext, based upon their construction of this treaty. 
According to this pretext they have the right to discriminate between American 
citizens because American citizens are to have only the same rights that Jewish sub- 
jects have, but we had not any such situation as that in mind when the treaty was 
negotiated, and from the beginning have uniformly denied the right of Russia to make 
this discrimination, have denied the correctness of that interpretation of the treaty 
of 1832, and have maintained that all American citizens must be treated alike, without 
regard to their religious faith. 

Mr. Garner. May I interrupt you? 

Mr. Harrison. Certainly. 

Mr. Garner. What can be done by the denunciation of the treaty any more than 
the mere suggestion that we do not agree that there should be any discrimination 
against American citizens? 

Mr. Harrison. The negotiation of a new treaty would be the result of that step, and 
in that new treaty the rights of American citizens would be properly protected, and it 
is on that account that I respectfully urge upon this committee the passage of the 
Parsons resolution. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OP 

NEW YORK. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. Harrison 
very correctly remarked that this question is not new either to this committee or to 
Congress. In 1902 I introduced a resolution calling upon the Secretary of State to 
Inform the House whether such discriminations as have been stated to this com- 
mittee to exist actually existed and wliether Russia refused to honor the passports 
of American citizens on account of religious faith. The resolution passed. The 
Secretary of State replied. He officially appeared to Congress that Russia refused 
to honor or recognize American passports when presented at her gate by Jewish 
American citizens. 

In 1904 I introduced another resolution calling on the President of the United 
States to renew negotiations with Russia to the end that projxer treaty stipulations 



286 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. - 

miglit be obtained from her so that passports would be uniformly honored without 
regard to the race, religious faith, or creed of the holder. In August, 1904, in accord- 
ance with the resolution that had passed the House some months before, Secretary 
Hay communicated with Mr. McCormick, our ambassador at St. Petersburg. The 
correspondence that passed between the Secretary of State and Mr. McCormick and 
between Mr. McCormick and the imperial minister of the Czar in Russia appears in 
the papers relating to foreign relations of 1904. I would like to have them, with the 
consent of this committee, printed in the record. I do, however, desire to read one 
passage from the letter of Mr. McCormick conveying the text of the resolution to the 
Russian Government. The ambassador says : 

"This resolution voices not only the feelings of the people, but also a principle 
which lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason that the ques- 
tion has been, is, and always will be a live question with us and liable to become 
acute and be brought forward at some time in such a way as to seriously disturb the 
friendly relations which have always existed between Russia and the United States." 
******* 

Mr. Flood. You have delivered several addresses in the House of Representatives 
which, I tljink, throw a good deal of light on this subject and, with your consent, I 
would be glad if you would incorporate those addresses in this hearing. 

Mr. GoLDPOGLE. I thank Mr. Flood for that very kind suggestion, and will submit, 
if it meets with the views of the committee, some of the remarks that I have made in 
the House on the subject we are now considering. The addresses to which Mr. 
Flood has referred contain extracts from letters of Mr. Evarts, Mr. Blaine, Mr. Gresham, 
and, I think, some other of our former Secretaries of State, interpreting the treaty of 
1832. As Mr. Harrison has stated, Russia does not agree with our interpretation, 
and therein lies the difficulty. 

Now, to continue the history of congressional action on this subject: In 1909 the 
matter was again brought before Congress when the joint resolution was introduced 
by me. It is the one referred to by my colleague, Mr. Harrison. I desire that the 
House joint resolution be printed in the hearings. (See American Jewish Year- 
book, 5670, p. 37.) 

The Committee on Foreign Affairs considered that joint resolution and reported 
it with an amendment. I observe from the printed hearings thus far on this subject 
that an error in stating the joint resolution and an omission as to its passage in both 
Houses has occurred. It was stated in the addenda to the remarks of Mr. Parsons 
that the joint resolution had passed the House of Representatives, leaving the infer- 
ence that the resolution had not passed the Senate nor been approved by the President. 
That is a mistake. The resolution, without any preamble, passed both Houses of 
Congress and was signed by the President on the 4th day of March, 1909. I submit, 
BO it may be printed in the record, a copy of the joint resolution as it passed Congress. 
(Ibid., p. 38.) 

Mr. Bennet. As I understand, my colleague has had the honor of having all the 
resolutions he has introduced on this subject reported and passed, except as to the 
last one, where the second section was stricken out? 

Mr. GoLDFOGLE. Yes, sir; and the second section of the joint resolution of 1909, as 
it was introduced, read: 

"That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the Russian Government with 
such demand and insistence, and that upon the failure of the Russian Government 
to abide by its treaty obligations with the Government of the United States and to 
comply with said demand the President of the United States shall give notice under 
and pursuant to article 12 of the treaty between the United States and the Emperor 
of all the Russias, ratified on the 11th day of May, in the year 1832, of the intention 
of the United States to arrest the operation of said treaty, and thereupon, pursuant to 
such official notificatiun and at the period fixed after giving such official notification 
under said article 12, the said treaty and convention between the United States and 
Russia shall be deemed ended and determined." 

The President has, I understand, taken the matter up and is proceeding under the 
joint resolution. 

It is deplorable that Russia dishonors the American passport when its holder is a 
Jew. It matters not to Russia whether the holder of the passport be a native or a 
naturalized citizen of our country; in either case Russia refuses to vise the passport, 
however eminent or respectable our citizen may be, basing her refusal upon the ground 
of the religious faith of the holder. This is an affront, not to the citizen alone who 
holds the passport, but to our Government who issues it. The persistency of Russia 
in declining to heed the repeated requests of our Government to do away with her 
discriminatory treatment of our citizens calls upon us as a self-respecting Nation to 
take such action as will tend to compel Russia to respect the integrity of a passport 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 287 

issued by our Government to a law-abiding citizen regardless of his religious faith or 
creed. ^ 

The question is an American question. It involves the upholding of American 
principles. When a subject of Russia comes to our country we make no inquiry as to 
his religious convictions, and, regardless of his creed, whatever it be, we afford him the 
hospitable shelter of our land and the protection of our laws. Yet, when an American 
citizen, armed with a passport, bearing the seal of our Government, presents that 
passport to the Russian authorities he is subjected to an inquiry or inquisition as to his 
religion, and recognition of our passport is refused when it is found that its holder is an 
Isrealite. 

Such a condition has become intolerable; it calls for decided action. It is not only 
irritating to the very large class of citizens it affects directly, but also to every fair- 
minded American, who believes, as I do, that the integrity of the American passport 
must be preserved and upheld. It would not be fair at this time, when each one of us 
is anxious to go over to the House to attend to the pressing business there, for me to 
detain the committee longer or to further enlarge upon the subject the resolution 
before us involves. 

I shall avail myself of the kind suggestion made by Mr. Flood to insert in the record 
eome of the remarks that were made by me in the House on various of the resolutions 
which were passed on. They will give, fully and fairly, my views upon the subject. 
I thank the committee for its kind attention and consideration. 

Mr. Bennet. I understand that you favor the Parsons resolution now pending 
before the committee? 

Mr. GoLDFOGLE. Yes; I favor the taking of such action as will give Russia dis- 
tinctly and emphatically to understand that America will no longer tolerate her 
imfair and unjust discrimination. 

Mr. Bennet. You think that the treaty should be abrogated? 

Mr. GoLDPOGLE. I think the treaty ought to be terminated if the President finds, 
after continuing his negotiations, that he can not succeed in getting Russia to uni- 
formly recognize the American passport. I want to say in justice of President Taft 
that I believe he has acted earnestly and energetically under the joint resolution that 
was passed in 1909. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. GRAHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF 

ILLINOIS. 

Mr. Graham. Mr. Chairman, I think it a great blot on our national reputation that 
we should have, with any nation, a pact which recognizes a distinction between our 
citizens on the grounds of religion or race. It seems to me to be rare inconsistency. 
Our Constitution recognizes the equality of all our citizens before the law and prohibits 
Congress from enacting any laws preferring one religion to another. But in this treaty 
with Russia the Government claims the treaty of 1832 means that American Jews shall 
have only such rights in Russia as are accorded by that Government to its own citizens 
of that faith. The result of this interpretation is that American citizens of the Jewish 
faith are practically prohibited from visiting or traveling in that country at all. 

American Secretaries of State and diplomats have repeatedly endeavored to induce 
the Russian Government to abandon this construction of the treaty, but without avail. 
Indeed, it seems useless to longer hope for any change in the attitude of that Govern- 
ment. 

What, then, should this Government do in the premises? 

Should we continue as a willing party to a treaty which, as the other party interprets 
it, is a repudiation of our own fundamental law? Shall we, by assisting to its continued 
enforcement, put ourselves in the absurd position of consenting to a discrimination 
against some of our citizens by a foreign Government because of their religious opinions? 

Surely we can not afford to do that. And since we are unable to get Russia to give 
the treaty a construction which will make it conform to the Constitution, we can at 
least save our self-respect and our respect for the Constitution by terminating the 
treaty altogether. 

We can not longer afford to be put in the discreditable position of assenting to the 
view that some American citizens, because of their religious opinions, are not entitled 
to the protection of the Constitution. 

_ If we can not induce Russia to consent to grant to American Jews an equality of 
rights with other American citizens who sojourn in that country, we can at least with- 
draw from the treaty arrangement and reduce the rights of all our citizens who desire to 
visit Russia to the same level. 

It is quite unnecessary, and indeed quite beside the question, to remind you that 
men of the Jewish faith constitute a very important element of our population, and reach 

21270—11 19 



288 TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

the highest eminence in business, in law, in medicine — -indeed in all lines of activity — 
for it is not alone the prominent and successful that the Constitution was ordained to 
protect. It reaches the poorest and the lowliest as well as the richest and most power- 
ful, and that it should be a reality, a living, vital force should be the determination of 
every American. 

Some day the proud boast of the Roman will be realized in America, and the man 
who can say, " I am an American citizen," will have a respectful consideration of his 
rights in any civilized land. 

The arrival of that day will be hastened by the termination of this shameful pact. 

Appendix 4. 
the united states passport and russia.^ 

It is the practice throughout the civilized world of one who contemplates leaving 
his country temporarily, either for business or pleasure, to sectue from his government 
a passport which, giving a description of the bearer, declares him to be a citizen of 
the country whose passport he bears and entitled to all the rights of such a citizen. 

It will doubtless be sm'prising to many to learn that when an American citizen 
makes application to our State Department for a passport to Russia he receives in 
reply a printed cu'cular which contains the following statement: 

"The laws of Russia also exclude fi'om Russian territory, except by special permis- 
sion, all people of the Jewish faith, and while this Government has been endeavoring 
for years to secure a relaxation of this restriction, it is only proper to warn those who 
are in the category to which they refer that it has not been able to secure from the 
Russian Government uniform treatment for all American travelers in Russia without 
regard to their religious faith or place of birth." 

If put on inquiry by this timely warning the Jewish holder of a passport seeks to 
secure the special permission of the Russian Government to enter Russia by having 
his passport viseed by a Russian consul, or by some other representative in this coun- 
try of the Russian Empke, his application is either at once denied or action upon it 
is postponed from time to time, resulting, if insisted upon, in a denial to grant the 
permission desired. 

There are some minor exceptions to this rule. If the holder of the passport be a 
banker or the head of a commercial house traveling exclusively on commercial busi- 
ness, he may have his passport visaed on condition that he enters only certain limits 
of Russian territory and remains for a certain limited period. And in other rare and 
exceptional cases, after considerable time has elapsed and much humiliation has been 
endm-ed, he may be permitted for a brief period to enter certain restricted territory. 
The general rule, however, is that the American passport in the hands of Jewish 
citizens is not recognized as of any force. 

In every other nation in the world the American passport is taken at its face value. 
In Russia, in the hands of a Jewish citizen, it is dishonored paper. 

It is a principle of international law that as a general rule each nation has the right 
to determine for itself whom it will admit within its borders, as an individual has the 
right to determine whom he will admit into his house. 

In all intercourse between nations, the two nations concerned must settle the terms 
upon which such intercourse will be permitted. One nation can not force another 
nation into a treaty of commerce with it any more than one man can force another 
man into a contract with him. (Woolsey's International Law, sec. 25.) 

In determining the question, therefore, as to whether Russia, in refusing to admit 
the American Jew into her territory, is violating any legal obligation, we must examine 
the treaties between the two countries, and determine from those treaties what the 
obligation on the part of Russia is with respect to the American passport. 

Has Russia by treaty agreed to recognize such passports? If she has not, then she 
is not bound to recognize them. If she has so agreed, then she has broken her obliga- 
tion and the only remaining question for America to determine is one of remedy. 

There are a number (perhaps 12) of treaties between this cotmtry and Russia, but the 
question 1 am examining this evening turns upon the construction of the treaty of 
1832, and more particularly upon Article I of that treaty. 

That article reads as follows: 

"There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall 
mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each 
party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn 

I A paper by Hon. Rulus B. Smitli read before the Temple Club of Congregation B'nai Israel, Cincin- 
nati, Apr. 5, 1911. 



TEBMIlSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 289 

and reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, 
and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the 
country wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- 
nances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning com- 
merce." 

In determining the construction of this article it is well to bear in mind the rule 
of construction of treaties declared by the Supreme Coiurt of the United States. ^ 
******* 

It is important, too, to bear in mind in this connection the familiar rule that the 
language of a contract is to be construed with reference to the smrrounding circum- 
stances at the time of its execution. 

We tiu-n now to an inquii-y as to what intention the high contracting parties had in 
mind to express when Article I, of the treaty of 1832, was drawn. 

In view of the nature of our Government, the letter of our Constitution, and the 
spirit of our institutions, it is impossible to doubt for a moment that by Article I, of 
the treaty of 1832, America intended that the rights granted by that article should 
extend equally to every citizen of America, without discrimination on account of race, 
creed, or religion. 

Absolute freedom of religious belief is one of the corner stones of our Republic. 
Among the great rights which the people of this Nation possess it ranks among the first; 
and the spirit of religious freedom has written into our National Constitution two 
great principles, viz: (1) No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to 
any ofhce or public trust under the United States, and (2) Congress shall make no 
law respecting the establishment of religion or permitting the free exercise thereof. 

It is then simply impossible to believe that in 1832, when the treaty was negotiated 
by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United 
States, that either the President or Senate for a moment entertained the idea that the 
treaty ga\ e a right to Russia to discriminate against any class of American citizens on 
account of its religious belief. Every Secretary of State since 1860, when this question 
first came up for discussion, including Mr. Evarts, Mr. Blaine, Mr. Bayard, and Mr. 
Olney, have repudiated any such supposed intention upon the part of the United 
States in executing the treaty of 1832, and have emphatically insisted that it was the 
intention of the United States in signing the treaty that all citizens of the United 
States should receive equal treatment under it. 

In one case, that of Mr. Adolph Kutner, concerning whose religious faith, among 
other things, the Russian Government made inquiry, Mr. Blaine said: 

" In reply, the representative of the United States was instructed that in convey ing 
the inquiry of the imperial office to Mr. Kutner the Department of State found itself un- 
able to interrogate him as to the religion professed by him, inasmuch as the Constitution 
of the United States prohibits the application of any religious test whatever in respect 
to our citizens. In dealing with all this class of cases the department has scrupulously 
abstained from taking official cognizance of the religious faith of any citizen. It can 
not inquire into it as a fact, and it can neither affirm or deny that an individual holds 
a particular creed." 

Neither at the time the treaty was signed nor for a period of nearly 30 years 
afterwards was the United States ever put upon inquiry as to whether Russia might not 
give a construction to the treaty different from that given to it by the United States. 
As is shown in a letter written by Mr. Blaine as Secretary to Mr. Foster, our minister 
to Russia, in which he reviews historically the Russian legislation and policy with 
respect to foreigners entering Russia, the United States had no reason to suspect 
that a construction would ever be put upon the treaty by Russia by which American 
citizens of a certain religious belief would be excluded from the protection of the 
treaty. 

Furthermore, our own acts under the treaty by which we have granted to every 
Russian coming into this country all the rights stipulated for in the treaty, irrespective 
of any creed or religion, are the highest evidence of our construction of the treaty 
and of our intention in entering into it. 

Let us examine the treaty now from the Russian point of view. 

The Russian contention is based mainly upon the language of the latter part of 
Article I, and the contention is that the inhabitants of each country have only those 
rights in the other country that the natives of such other country enjoy, and that 
therefore, as by the laws of Russia the Russian Jews are confined to certain limited 
territories and certain occupations, and subject to many inquisitorial and persecuting 
enactments, that an American Jew who goes to Russia is entitled to only these limited 
rights to which the native Jew is entitled. 

1 Judge Smith here quotes the Supreme Court decisions already given in Mr. Marshall's address, ante, 
p. 78. 



290 - TEEMINATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

In seeking the proper construction of this treaty, in addition to the principles of 
construction declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, to which I have 
previously referred, viz, that treaties are to be given a liberal and not a narrow con- 
struction, and that they should be construed in a spirit of uberrima fides, I wish to 
direct attention to two other principles of construction applicable to all written 
instruments: 

1. A written instrument must be so construed as to give force and effect to all its 
parts, so that the instrument when finally read shall be a consistent whole; and 

2. An instrument is not to be given a certain construction simply because its lan- 
guage may be susceptible of such a construction. The true construction of an instru- 
ment is one that, taking into consideration the language of the instrument, the object 
in view, and the surrounding circumstances, gives effect to the intention of the parties. 

In examining Russia's construction of the treaty, it is important to bear in mind 
the language of Article I. 

* * . * * * * * 

The first clause of the article, then, declares that "There shall be between the terri- 
tories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and naviga- 
tion." The reciprocal liberty here stipulated for necessarily means that liberty of 
commerce and navigation are given alike to both parties; and that citizens of the 
United States have the same liberty of commerce and navigation with respect to 
Russia that citizens of Russia have"with respect to the United States; and unless 
modified in other parts of the article or treaty that liberty is necessarily free and with- 
out restriction. 

Then follow the two remaining clauses of the article, which undoTibtedlywere 
intended to make certain the rights granted in the first clause by a more particular 
definition of them. The first of these two remaining clauses grants to the citizens 
of each territory the right to enter the territory of the other, and the last clause define 
their rights in the territory when it has been entered. In the first of these clauses it 
is declared that "The inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have lib- 
ertv to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each party, wherever 
foreign commerce is permitted." Here undoubtedly is granted beyond question, 
without distinction and without discrimination, the right to every citizen of the one 
territory to enter the territory of the other "wherever foreign commerce is perniitted." 

Upon what ground then can Russia refuse admission into its territory of citizens of 
the United States according to any religious test which it may arbitrarily select? 
Its refusal to allow American citizens of Jewish faith to enter its territory is clearly 
in violation of the express language of this clause of the treaty. 

Unable to find any support for its position in the two clauses of Article I, to which 
I have referred, the" Russian diplomats have made their last stand on the last clause 
of the article. * * * It will be observed that this clause has no reference to the 
right of entry into the country; that right is guaranteed in the two precedingclauses. 
It relates only to the rights of the person after entry has been made. If this clause 
is taken bv itself, and adherence given to the mere letter of it, aside from the purpose 
in view when it was drawn, and the permissible intent of our Government, aside from 
the other and the controlling clauses in the article, aside from the surrounding cir- 
cumstances at the time the treaty was executed, and aside from the practical con- 
struction put upon the clause by both parties for a period of 30 years, it might be ar- 
gued that the clause is susceptible of the construction which Russia puts upon it. 
But it is impossible to so construe this instrument ignoring the other consideration 
to which I have just referred and ignoring the rules of construction of written instru- 
ments and especially of treaties to which I have called attention. 

The meaning of this clause is perfectly plain. Clauses of similar import are, as a 
rule, found in all treaties which provide for reciprocal intercourse between countries. 
They are intended to make the laws of the respective countries applicable in a general 
way to all who enter the country. The foreigner is not to be above the law of the 
country into which he may come. If murder or larceny is a crime in such country 
and he commits murder or larceny, he is a criminal. Contracts made in Russia may 
be governed bv the Russian law, and the commercial customs and usages of the coiin- 
try would be applicable. Ordinary health laws or police regulations, so long as they 
do not interfere with fundamental rights, would be enforceable. Many other illus- 
trations could be given of this principle, but they are unnecessary ._ But it is a well- 
settled principle of international law that a local law can not override the obligation 
of a treaty. If it does, then the treaty is necessarily void, for it is impossible to carry 
out its provisions. In 1S81 Mr. Blaine, in his letter to Mr. Foster, said: 

"It would be, in the judgment of this Government, absolutely inadmissible that 
a domestic law restraining native Hebrews from residence in certain parts of the 
Empire might operate to hinder an American citizen, whether alleged or known to 
profess the Hebrew faith, from disposing of his property or taking possession thereof 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 291 

for himself (subject only to the laws of alien inheritance), or being heard in person 
by the courts which, under Russian law, may be called upon to decide matters to 
which he is necessarily a party. The case would clearly be one in which the obli- 
gation of a treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions 
of the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are among the most 
common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it is their concurrent 
judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express terms it can not 
be limited by the operation of domestic law without a serious breach of good faith 
which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional engage- 
ment in favor of the citizens of another State exists, the law governing natives in like 
cases is manifestly inapplicable." 

It never could have been the intention of either Eussia or America in the treaty of 
1832 that local laws could be passed which by force of the last clause of Article I 
entirely nullified the first two clauses of th3 same article, and as Russia in 1832 under- 
stood the great principle of our Government, of the separation of church and state, 
and the President and Senate could not have forgotten that principle, it is impos- 
sible to suppose that either contracting party to the treaty of 1832 supposed that 
either party could deny the privileges of the treaty to the citizens of either country 
on the ground that their religious faith did not meet the approval of the country into 
which they sought entrance. * * * Furthermore, it is impossible to reconcile the 
Russian construction of the last clause of Article I, with the two preceding clauses 
of the same article. 

How can there be "reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation" between the 
territories of the high contracting parties if a large part of the American public, solely 
on the ground of religious faith, are not permitted to enter the country. And how 
can this latter clause be used to nullify the American passport on the ground of the 
religious faith of the holder when the preceding clause expressly declares that "the 
inhabitants of their respective States shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, 
places, and rivers of the territories of each other, wherever foreign commerce is per- 
mitted " ? 

Mr. Blaine in his letter of 1881 to Mr. Foster, the American Minister to Russia, to 
which I will again refer, has shown, too, that in 1832 the policy of Russia was to invite 
foreigners into that country, and that policy must have been one of the surrounding 
circumstances which it is presumed was in the mind of both of the contracting parties 
at the time the treaty was signed. 

It is a familiar principle of law that where an ambiguity arises in the terms of a 
contract the practical construction the parties have put upon the contract carried out 
continuously for a period of time, beginning with the time of its execution, affords the 
highest evidence of the intention of the parties at the time it was executed and makes 
clear a term of the contract, which in the absence of a practical operation under it 
might be subject to the charge of ambiguity. From 1832 up to 1860, a period of nearly 
30 years, no question was raised as to the validity of American passports in Russia. 
In his letter to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, in 1881, Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of 
State, speaking of a period many years prior to 1832, declared that— 

"From this time (1817) down to 1860 I can find no trace of the enforcement, espe- 
cially against American citizens, of the construction against Jewish travel and resi- 
dence which are stated to have existed when our treaty with Russia Avas signed. It is 
a significant circumstance that the acknowledged authorities on private international 
law, writing during this period upon the legislation of all Europe as affecting the 
persons and rights of aliens, make no reference to such disabilities." 

Is not this practical construction of the treaty put upon it by both parties for nearly 
30 years the very highest evidence as to the intention of those who framed it? 

The conclusion I have reached as to the proper construction of this treaty is sup- 
ported by the conclusion reached by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives in 1892. In its report on" this question to the House of Representa- 
tives in 1892, that committee, among other things, said: 

"Our Government can make no distinction based on creeds or birthplaces of its citi- 
zens, nor can it permit such distinction to be made by foreign powers. Not the reli- 
gion nor race of a person but his American citizenship is the grand test of the treatment 
he shall receive and the rights he shall enjoy in other countries. * * * 

"This treaty stipulation between civilized nations would seem to have but one 
meaning, and to admit of no discrimination in favor of some and against other citizens 
of either of the high contracting parties, but what claim Russia may make under the 
clause in regard to 'security and protection' and the 'condition of their submitting to 
the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulation in force 
concerning commerce' is the question. 

"Is the 'security and protection' accorded to a native Russian Jew the 'security 
and protection' to be accorded to an American citizen of Jewish faith? Are the 



292 TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 

restrictions placed on the Russian Jew as to commerce part of the 'laws and ordinances ' 
to be submitted to and to be regarded under the treaty as 'regulations in force concern- 
ing c'ommerce'? These are problems of serious concern to the American Jews, who, 
as men of commercial pursuits, feel that all avenues of trade should be open to them 
and as American citizens that they should stand abroad as they do at home on an exact 
equality with other children of the Repubhc. 

"The committee are certain that a discrimination can not legally be made against 
them, and that if it is made, practically it would be a violation of the treaty and an 
unfriendly act toward the United States on the part of Russia." 

As the refusal of Russia to recognize the American passport is a violation of the treaty 
of 1832, the remaining question is one of remedy. What action should the United 
States take in the matter? It is true that the discrimination is not against America 
only, but is also enforced against other countries, as, for instance, France and England. 
But America is in a different position from the European powers. The complications 
of European politics and diplomacy make it almost impossible for any European 
nationality to make an issue -with Russia upon this question. For the last 20 years 
France has had a political alliance with Russia of great advantage to her, insuring 
her against the other powers of Europe, and England finds it necessary to expend her 
energy and diplomatic resources in preventing the encroachment of Russia in the 
Far East. 

But the United States is not hampered by the complicated nature of European 
politics. There is no reason except a purely commercial one which prevents the 
assertion of our rights and an insistance upon the vindication of American principles. 
If the violation of the treaty were in a minor matter or in a matter not of great impor- 
tance or not involving the violation of one of the great principles of this Nation, such 
violation, as in that of any other contract, might be overlooked in view of the greater 
benefits which followed the continuance of the treaty. 

But to continue with the treaty of 1832, accepting Russia's construction of the treaty 
is equivalent to executing a treaty which contained in it a provision such as Russia 
by construction reads into the treaty of 1832 ; and a treaty which by its terms expressly 
excluded from its benefits persons of certain religious faiths would be contrary to one 
of the great fundamental principles of the United States, which recognizes as between 
its citizens no discrimination based solely on religious grounds. By such a treaty, too, 
the United States becomes a party to a convention which places a stigma upon a large 
part of its citizens, however honorable and reputable they may be. The construction, 
therefore, which Russia puts upon the treaty is necessarily an affront to American 
citizenship. For as citizens of this great Republic we stand alike before the law, 
and an affront to a part is an affront to all. In contemplation of law we are one people. 
Unless we are willing to abandon that principle let us stand or fall together. 

To the suggestion that the United States should dhect the attention of Russia to 
its violation oi the treaty, before abrogating it, in the hope that such diplomatic action 
may result in the adoption by Russia of a different construction, it is sufficient to say 
that the Department of State has repeatedly made such protests, but without avail. 
The construction contended for by the United States was insisted upon as far back as 
1867, by Mr. Cassius M. Clay, our minister to Russia, and protests have been made by 
Secretaries Blaine, Evarts, Bayard, and Olney. 

In the Rosenstrauss case in 1867, Mr. Clay in addressing the Russian authorities said: 
"That he admits Mr. Rosenstrauss is a Jew, but as all religions are alike tolerated 
in the United States, they claim equal protection for all their citizens without regard 
to religious principles." 

In 1880 Mr. Evarts, in letters to Mr. Foster, our minister to Russia, intended for 
presentation to the Russian Government, among other things, said: 

"In reply, I have to observe that in the presence of this fact, that an American 
citizen has 'been ordered to leave Russia on no other ground than that he is the pro- 
fessor of a particular creed, or the holder of certain religious views, it becomes the duty 
01 the Government of the United States, which impartially seeks to protect all its 
citizens, of whatever origin or faith, solemnly, but with all respect to the Government 
of his Majesty, to protest. * * * 

"Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, the United States could not fail to look 
upon the expulsion of one of its citizens from Russia on the simple grouiid of his 
religious ideas or convictions, except as a grievance akin to that which Russia would 
doubtless find in the expulsion of one of her own citizens from the United States on 
the ground of his attachment to the faith of his fathers." 
In 1881, in another letter to Mr. Foster, he said: 

"I have observed, however, that in some of your conversations and writmgs with 
the foreign office you give prominence to the natural American sympathy with op- 
pressed Jews elsewhere as a motive for our solicitude as to the treatment of Jews in 



TERMHSrATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 293 

"Such solicitude might very properly exist; but iu your presentation of the 
facts you should be careful to impress that we ask treaty treatment for our aggrieved 
citizens, not because they are Jews, but because they are Americans. Russia's treat- 
ment of her own Jews, or of other foreign Jews resorting thither, may, in determinate 
cases, attract the sympathy of the American people, but the aim of the Government 
of the United States is the specific one of protecting its OAvn citizens. If the hardships 
to which Russian and foreign Jews are subjected involves our citizens, we think we 
have just ground for remonstrance and expectancy of better treatment. 

"This Government does not know, or inquire, the religion of the American citizens 
it protects. It can not take cognizance of the methods by which the Russian authori- 
ties may arrive at the conclusion or conjecture that any given American citizen pro- 
fesses the Israeli tish faith." 

In the same year, Mr. Blaine in a letter to our minister to Russia, said: 

"You can further advise him (the Russian minister of foreign affairs) that we can 
make no new treaty with Russia, nor accept any construction of our existing treaty 
which shall discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their 
religious faith." 

In 1886 Secretary of State Bayard said: 

"The Government of the Czar is fully aware that we do not admit the principle of 
discriminating against any American citizens because of their religious tenets." 

In 1896 Secretary Olney, in a report to President Cleveland, said: 

"The published correspondence for a number of years back has shown the persist- 
ence of the United States in endeavoring to obtain for its citizens, whether native or 
naturalized, and irrespective of their faith, the equality of privilege and treatment 
stipulated for all American citizens in Russia by existing treaties. Holding to the 
old doctrine of perpetual allegiance; refusing to lessen its authority by concluding 
any treaty recognizing the naturalization of a Russian subject without prior imperial 
consent; asserting the extreme right to punish a naturalized R,ussian on return to his 
native jurisdiction, not merely for unauthorized emigration, but also specifically for 
the unpermitted acquisition of a foreign citizenship; and sedulously applying at home 
and through the official act of its agents abroad, to all persons of the Jewish belief, the 
stern restrictions enjoined by Russian law, the Government of Russia takes ground 
not admitting of acquiescence by the United States, because at variance with the 
character of our institutions, the sentiments of our people, the provisions of our stat- 
utes, and the tendencies of modern international comity." 

Resolutions have been passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate, or 
both, in 1882, 1883, 1884, 1890, 1902, 1904, and 1909. The resolution of 1909, passed by 
both Houses of Congress and approved by the President, is typical of these resolu- 
tions. It reads as follows : 

"Whereas it is alleged that the Government of Russia has continued up to the 
present time to refuse to vise, recognize, or honor passports presented to its authorities, 
issued by the American Government to American citizens, on the groimd that the 
holders thereof were of the Jewish faith: Therefore be it 

'■'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, 
directed to renew negotiations with the Government of Russia to seciu'e, by treaty 
or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding 
passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all American 
citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojoiu'n in such country without regard 
to race, creed, or religious faith, including a provision that the honoring or viseing 
of passports when duly issued and held by citizens of the United States shall not be 
withheld because or on account of the race, creed, or religious faith of their holders." 

Both the Republican and Democratic Parties in their national conventions have 
insisted upon the equal treatment of all Americans under owe treaties, having in mind 
the violation of the treaty of 1832, 

******* 

"The present treaty shall continue in force until the first day of January in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty -nine, and if one year before that 
day one of the high contracting parties shall not have announced to the other by an 
official notification its intention to arrest the operation thereof, this treaty shall remain 
obligatory one year beyond that day, and so on until the expiration of the year, which 
shall commence after the date of a similar notification." 

In other words, the treaty can be abrogated upon giving one year's notice. This 
notice should be given; and if, as a result of such notice, Russia refuses to negotiate 
a supplemental treaty by which the rights of all American citizens are recognized, 
without discrimination, upon religious grounds, the treaty should be terminated. 

When this policy is advocated inquiry is at once made as to where it would leave 
this country in its relations with Russia. How much will it cost us to do what is right? 



294 TERMiisrATioisr of the treaty of 1832. 

How much will it cost us to adhere to the principles of the Republic? Neither com- 
mercial nor diplomatic relations between nations are dependent upon the existence 
of a treaty between them. With tTie abrogation of the treaty we would go back to the 
position we occupied in 1832, before the treaty was executed. It is true a liberal 
treaty tends to foster commercial relations between tAvo countries, and an illiberal 
treaty to interfere with them; and a properly framed treaty undoubtedly removes 
many artificial barriers to trade, whose technical interference in the absence of a 
treaty is annoying, and if you will, in a measure obstructive of commerce. But no 
one can doubt that if we have anything to sell which Russia "tvants, she will buy from 
us; and that if she has anything to sell which we are willing to buy, she will sell it to 
us. Compared to our vast commerce of imports and exports those with Russia are 
comparatively insignificant. The total imports are about $18,000,000, and the exports 
about $17,000,000. These figures, of course, do not represent profits. They merely 
represent the aggregate of purchase and sales. The profits in all probability would 
not exceed 10 per cent of the aggregate amount, which would be about $3,500,000. 

We have, too, in the maximum clause of the Payne tariff law, which will compel 
Russia's imports of $18,000,000 to pay an extra duty of 25 per cent, a weapon to be 
considered. Our imports consist mostly of hides, furs, leather, and raw materials, 
and our exports of agricultural machinery, sewing machines, and other manufactiu-ed 
articles. A number of American trusts are now operating in Russia and are engaged 
in carrying on manufactories there, as I am informed, under Russian charters. Among 
these trusts are the Harvester Trust, the Singer Sewing Machine Co., and the West- 
inghouse Co. I do not believe their operations would be interfered with, as they are 
carrying on business under the protection of charters granted by the Russian 
Government. 

Whenever Russia admitted within her boundaries any American citizen, it would 
owe protection to him and his property. A violation of his rights in that regard would 
be a proper ground for intervention by our Government. That right does not depend 
upon a treaty. 

But the question involved, as I have stated, is a much greater one than any business 
question. The question is whether we propose to be true to one of the great principles 
of this Government, or whether we are to barter it away for a mess of pottage. Are 
we to place the dollar above the man? Are we to consent to a stigma' being placed 
on American citizenship if only we can make a few dollars out of it, or are we to say 
to the world that every citizen of honest character and good report shall receive equal 
treatment at the hands of foreign nations, and that an insult to one class is an insult 
to all? Every great movement in the world has been led by some man or men or 
by some people or nation who placed principle above material considerations. This 
very nation grew out of a revolution which refused to pay a small stanip tax because 
its payment involved a great principle. Emerson has somewhere said that in the 
course of time the whole world moves around to the man who stands true. If this 
aphorism is true of men it is true of nations, which are but aggregations of men. But 
whether true or not, let us be true to ourselves and our principles, and true to those 
among us upon whom it is sought to place an undeserved stigma, and let the conse- 
quences take care of themselves. 

The passport question to Russia is generally regarded as a Jewish question, but it 
is not entirely so. For not only the Jew, but also Catholic priests and Protestant 
missionaries are excluded from Russia. But as I have endeavored to point out, it 
is not a Jewish or a Catholic or a Protestant question, but a cfuestion pi American 
citizenship that is involved. If, however, it were solely a Jewish question, I should 
not shrink from meeting it, nor would my attitude in regard to it be in the least 
changed. For as I have said a discrimination in a treaty against a part of our people 
on religious grounds is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of our Govern- 
ment. If in this case it happens to be the Jew, to-morrow it may be the Catholic, 
and tfi'«tday after the Protestant, and the day after that some other class. We can 
not admit such a discrimination without being false to American citizenship. The 
sanctity and integrity of that Citizenship must be preserved at whatever cost. 

The day of compulsion, by whatever peaceful means it may seek to accomplish its 
purpose in forcing men to alaandon their religious views, and the day of discrimina- 
tion against men because of a difference in religious opinion is passing away in civil- 
ized countries as certainly as the rack and thumbscrew of other days have passed 
away. A wider tolerance in religious matters marks the steady advance of a higher 
justice and a more enlightened public opinion. 

Let the treaty with Russia be abrogated. No other course is open to the United 
States. If such a course is followed, its moral effect can not be calculated, for in 
the end no nation can afford to affront the enlightened moral sentiment of the world. 
And if this Russian passport question has become a Jewish question, let it be so, 
and let those of us who are not Jews show that American citizenship when it covers 
the Jew is as sacred as when it covers the Christian. 



APPENDIX 111. 



BRIEF ON TERMINATION OF TREATIES. 

By Herbert Friedenwald, Ph. D.,^ 

Secretary of the American Jewish Committee, New York City. 

The Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2, provides that the President "shall 
have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, 
provided two-tWds of the Senators present concur," and in Article VI, section 2, 
that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in 
pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority 
of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every 
State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to 
the contrary notwithstanding." But the Constitution is silent as to the authority 
in whom is lodged the power to terminate, abrogate, or repeal treaties. 

Under the terms of the Constitution, many treaties have been negotiated by the 
President, ratified by the Senate, and duly proclaimed. They have thus become 
part of the supreme law of the land and as such appear among the United States 
statutes. 

The earlier treaties contained no provisions for their termination, but since 1826 
it has been the custom to include such provisions, the time of notice varying from 
six months to two years. 

According to Wharton, treaties "may be modified or abrogated under the following 
circumstances: 

"(1) When the parties mutually consent. 

" (2) When continuance is conditioned upon terms which no longer exist. 

" (3) When either party refuses to perform a material stipulation. 

"(4) When all the material stipulations have been performed. 

" (5) When a party having the option elects to withdraw. 

*' (6) When performance becomes physically or morally impossible. 

"(7) When a state of things which was the basis of the treaty and one of its tacit 
conditions no longer exists. "^ 

HOW treaties are terminated by the united states. 

I. By act of Congress. 

II. By joint resolution authorizing or requesting the President to give notice. 

III. By joint resolution at the request or suggestion of the President. 

IV. By resolution of the Senate authorizing the President to give notice. 

V. By notice from the President subsequently "adopted and ratified" by a joint 
resolution. 

VI. By notice from the President without any prior or subsequent act or resolution 
of Congress. 

VII. By a new treaty superseding one of prior date. 

I. By act of Congress. 

In this connection the following by John Jay, in No. 64 of the Federalist, is of 
interest: 

"They who make laws may without doubt amend or repeal them; and it will not 
be disputed that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them." ^ 

1 See Crandall, Treaties, their making and enforcement. Columbia University, Nev/ York, 1904. 

2 Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. V, p. 3, 9. 
5 Lodge's Federalist, p. 400. 

295 



296 TEEMINATIOJSr OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

And the following extract from a letter of Madison is pertinent:^ 
_ "Treaties, as I understand the Constitution, are made supreme over the constitu- 
tions and laws of the particular States, and, like a subsequent law of the United 
States, over preexisting laws of the United States; provided, however, that the treaty 
be within the prerogative of making treaties, which, no doubt, has certain limits. 
_ "That the contracting parties can annul the treaty, can not, I presume, be ques- 
tioned, the same authority precisely being exercised in annulling as in making a 
treaty. 

"That a breach on one side (even of a single article, each being considered as a 
condition of every other article) discharge the other, is as little questionable; but 
with this reservation, that the other side is at liberty to take advantage or not of the 
breach, as dissolving the treaty. Hence, I infer that the treaty with Great Britain, 
which has not been annulled by mutual consent, must be regarded as in full force 
by all on whom its execution in the United States depends, until it shall be declared 
by the party to whom a right has accrued by the breach of the other party to declare, 
that advantage is taken of the breach and the treaty is annulled accordingly. In 
case it should be adAdsable to take advantage of the adverse breach, a question may 
perhaps be started ,_ whether the power vested by the Constitution with respect to 
treaties in the President and Senate makes them the competent judges, or whether 
as the treaty is alaw, the whole legislature are to judge of its annulment, or whether, 
in case the President and Senate be competent in ordinary treaties, the legislative 
authority be requisite to annul a treaty of peace, as being equivalent to a declaration 
of war, to which that authority alone, by our Constitution, is competent." 

Also Judge Iredell, in 1796, when it was "argued that the treaty of peace between 
the United States and Great Britain of 1783 was to be considered by the courts as 
suspended or abrogated by Great Britain's failure to execute certain parts of it, said:^ 

"It is a part of the law of nations that if a treaty be violated by one .party, it is 
at the option of the other party, if innocent, to declare, in consequence of the breach, 
that the treaty is void. If Congress, therefore (who I conceive alone have such author- 
ity under the Government), shall make such a declaration * * * I shall deem 
it my duty to regard the treaty as void, * * * But the same law of nations tells 
me that until that declaration is made, I must regard it (in the language of the law) 
valid and obligatory. " 

Similarly, when the question of abrogating the treaty of 1798 with France was 
under discussion in Congress,^ Albert Gallatin said he knew of no precedent of a 
legislature repealing a treaty, and as it was a peculiar act it must be justified by a pre- 
amble, as it is not sufficient to say merely that a treaty is abrogated because it has been 
violated. 

Legislative abrogation or termination has been accomplished by four methods, as 
follows: 

"First. Either by a formal resolution or act of Congress approved by the President, 
or, in case of his refusal to approve it, passed over his veto by two-thirds of both 
Houses, in which case it becomes the latest expression of the legislative department 
of the Government, and therefore the supreme law of the land, and the executive 
department is bound to carry out the wishes of the legislative in express terms.* 

"Second. By legislation, not abrogating the treaty in terms, but terminating the 
relations existing thereunder, or rendering them impossible of continuance, by enact- 
ing legislation hostile thereto, or conflicting therewith, and which may supersede 
the treaty as to the special stipulations affected, or in effect abrogate it altogether.^ 

"Third. By legislation which, while it does not directly in terms abrogate the treaty 
in whole or in part, * * * so conflicts therewith that the doctrine of repeal by 
implication applies thereto. * * *6 

"Fourth. By a declaration of war.''" 

1 Mr. Madison to Mr. Pendleton, Jan. 2, 1791. VI Hunt's Madison, pp. 23-24. 

2 Moore's Digest, Vol. V, p. 320, quoting Ware v. Hylton (1796), 3 Dallas, 199, 261. 

3 Annals of Congress, 1797-99, pp. 2120, 23, 26. 

< Refers to statutes of 1789 and 1883, abrogating treaties with France and Great Britain. 

5 Chinese-exclusion laws best examples of statutes of this class. 

6 Refers to Chinese-exclusion cases. 

' Treaty-making powers of the United States, C. H. Butler. Banks Law Pub. Co., 21 Murray Street, 
N. Y., 1902. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 297 

The only instance in our history of the abrogation of a treaty by special act of Con- 
gress was m July, 1798, when the treaty with France was abrogated in the following 
terms : ' 

"Whereas the treaties concluded between the United States and France have been 
repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government; and the just claims of 
the United States for the reparation of the injuries so committed have been refused, 
and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all com plaints between 
the two nations have been repelled with indignity; and whereas, under authority 
of the French Government, there is yet pursued against the United States a system 
of predatory violence, infracting the said treaties and hostile to the laws of a free 
and independent nation: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- 
ica in Congress assembled, That the United States are of right freed and exonerated from 
the stipulations of the treaties and of the consular convention heretofore concluded 
between the United States and France; and that the same shall not henceforth be 
regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States. 

"Approved, July, 1798." 

As France refused to regard this act as valid and declined to recognize any claims 
aiising under it, the United States "in the end purchased a release from the obliga- 
tions of the treaties with the relinquishment of the claims of its citizens, for the pay- 
ment of which it thus became liable." ^ These formed the famous French spoliation 
claims. 

But there are in our history many instances of what is known as "implied revocation 
or repeal" by the termination of treaties by later statutes and of statutes by later 
treaties. (Moore, V, 364-370.) Of the former, the Head Money cases, the Chinese- 
exclusion cases, and the tariff acts are the most significant examples. In this con- 
nection, the remarks of the present Secretary of State, in 1901, when Attorney General, 
are pertinent: 

"A treaty duly ratified is as much the supreme law of the land as a statute. The 
latter expression of the lawgivers will replace preceding law if inconsistent or repug- 
nant, even if there is not an express repeal. While repeals by implication are not 
favored where a later law entirely substitutes new provisions for the scheme of the 
earlier law, it is displaced by the later statute. (Knox, At. Gen., Oct. 10, 1901, 23 
Op., 545, aflarming 21 Op., 347, and holding that Art. II of the convention with China 
of Dec. 8, 1894, repealed a part of sec. 7 of the act of Dec. 13, 1888, 25 Stat., 476, assum- 
ing that the act was in force — a question reserved in Li Sing v. United States, 180 
U. S., 486, 488, 490, where it was held that, without regard to the question whether 
the act ever became effective, sec. 12 could not be considered as in force.) " 

Judge Story (sec. 1838) also states that treaties — 

"May be canceled or abrogated by the nation upon * * * suitable occasions; 
* * ■* they are subject to the legislative process, and may be repealed, like other 
laws, at its pleasure." 

And in connection with the termination of the treaty with Denmark of 1826, 
Buchanan, in 1848, when Secretary of State, said: 

"It is probable that two years might elapse before the existing convention could be 
terminated, as an act must first pass Congress to enable the President to give the 
required notice, after which a year must expire before it could be rendered effectual. " 

There is therefore no doubt of the full authority and power of Congi-ess to abrogate, 
repeal, or terminate a treaty in such manner as it deems fitting and necessary. 

II. By joint resolution authorizing or 'requesting the President to act. 

This is the more usual method of terminating treaties and has been resorted to on 
three instances, as follows: 

1. The termination of the reciprocity treaty with Great Britain of June 5, 1854, 
by a joint resolution of January 18, 1865:^ 

"JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for the termination of tlie reciprocity treaty of fiftli June, eighteen 
hundred and fifty-four, between the United States and Great Britain.'' 

"Whereas it is provided in the reciprocity treaty concluded at Washington the fifth 
of June, eighteen hundred and fifty-four, between the United States of the one part, 
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of the other part, that this 
treaty 'shall remain in force for ten years from the date at which it may come into 

1 1 Stat. L., 578. 3 13 Stat. L., 56fi. 

2 Moore, 5, 357-8. « 38th Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 18, 1865, resolution 6. 



298 TERMINATION" OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 

operation, and, further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the high 
contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same,' 
and; whereas it appears by a proclamation of the President of the United States, 
bearing date sixteenth of March, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, that the treaty 
came into operation on that day; and whereas further, it is no longer for the inter- 
ests of the United States to continue the same in force; therefore 
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of the reciprocity 
treaty, according to the provisions therein contained for the termination of the same ; 
and the President of the United States is hereby charged with the commimication 
of such notice to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Ireland. 

"Approved January 18, 1865." 

2. The termination of the treaty of July 17, 1858, with Belgium, by joint resolution 
of June 17, 1874, as follows: ^ 

"Joint Resolution Providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States and J3is Majesty 
the King of the Belgians, concluded at Washington, July seventeenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight. 

"Whereas, it is provided by the seventeenth article of the treaty between the United 
States of America, on the one part, and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, on 
the other part, concluded at Washington on the seventeenth day of July anno 
Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, that ' the present treaty shall be m force 
dm-ing ten years from the date of the exchange of ratifications, and until the expira- 
tion of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall have 
announced to the other its intention to terminate the operation thereof, each party 
reserving to itself the right of making such declaration to the other at the end of 
the ten years above mentioned, and it is agreed that, after the expiration of the 
twelve months' prolongation accorded on both sides, this treaty and all its stipula- 
tions shall cease to be of force, ' and 
^'Whereas, it is no longer for the interest of the United States to continue the said 
treaty, in force: Therefore, 

"Resolved by theJSenate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of said treaty, according 
to the provisions of the said seventeenth article thereof for such termination, and the 
President of the United States is hereby authorized to communicate such notice to the 
Government of the Kingdom of Belgium. 
"Approved June 17, 1874." 

3. And the termination of certain provisions of the treaty of Washington of 1871 
with Great Britain by joint resolution of March 3, 1883, which took effect July 1, 1885: ^ 

^'JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for the termination of articles numbered eighteen to twenty-five, 
inclusive, and article numbered thirty of the treaty between the United States of America and 
Her Britannic Majesty, concluded at Washington, May eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy-one. 

" Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress 
assembled. That in the judgment of Congress the provision of articles numbered 
eighteen to twenty-five, inclusive, and of article thirty of the treaty between the 
United States and Her Britannic Majesty, for an amicable settlement of all causes of 
difference between the two countries, concluded at Washington on the eighth day of 
May, anno Domini, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, ought to be terminated at 
the earliest possible time; and be no longer in force; and to this end the President 
be, and he hereby is, directed to give notice to the Government of her Britannic 
Majesty that the provisions of each and every of the articles aforesaid will terminate 
and be of no force on the expiration of two years next after the time of giving such 
notice. 

" Sec 2. That the President be, and he hereby is, directed to give or communicate 
to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty such notice of such termination on the 
first day of July, anno Domini, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, or as soon there- 
after as may be. 

" Sec. 3. That on and after the expiration of the two years' time required by said 
treaty, each and every of said articles shall be deemed and held to have expired and 
be of no force and effect, and that every department of the Government of the United 
States shall execute the laws of the United States (in the premises) in the same manner 
and to the same effect as if said articles had never been in force; and the Act of Con- 

1 XVIII Stat. L. 287, 43d Cong., 1st sess., resolution 10, June 17, 1874. 
2 22 Stat. L., 641. 



TERMINATION OF THE TEEATY OF 1832. 299 

gress approved March, first, anno Domini, eighteen hundred and seventy-three, 
entitled ' An act to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty between the United 
States and Great Britain,' signed in the city of Washington, the eighth day of May, 
eighteen hundred and seventy-one, relating to the fisheries so far as it relates to the 
article of said treaty so to be terminated shall be and stand repealed and be of no force 
on and after the time of the expiration of said two years. 
"Approved March 3, 1883." 

III. By joint resolution at the request or suggestion of the President. 

,J!>The unsatisfactory results following the joint occupation of Oregon by the United 
States and Great Britain led President Polk in his message of December 2, 1845 ^ to 
recjuest Congress to give him the power, by appropriate legislation, to give Great Bri- 
tain the one year's notice of a desire to terminate the treaty as required by the pro- 
visions of that treaty. Accordingly, Congress passed the following resolution, ap- 
proved April 27, 1846: 

JOINT RESOLUTION Concerning Oregon Territory.^ 

Whereas, by the convention concluded the twentieth day of October, eighteen 
hundred and eighteen, between the United States of America and the King of 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the period of ten years, and 
afterwards indefinitely extended and continued in force by another convention of 
the same parties, concluded the sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand eight hundred and twenty -seven, it was agreed that any country that may 
be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony 
or Rocky Mountains, now commonly called the Oregon Territory, should, together 
with its harbors, bays, creeks and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be 
"free and open" to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two parties; but without 
prejudice to any claim which either of the parties might have to any part of said 
country; and with this further provision, in the second article of said convention of 
the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, that either party might 
abrogate and annul said convention on giving due notice of twelve months to the 
other contracting party; 

'And whereas, it it has now become desirable that the respective claims of the United 
States and Great Britain should be definitely settled, and that said territory may no 
longer than need be remain subject to the evil consequences of the divided allegiance 
of its American and British population, and of the confusion and conflict of national 
jurisdictions, dangerous to the cherished peace and good understanding of the two 
countries; 

"With a view, therefore, that steps be taken for the abrogation of the said convention 
of the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven, in the mode prescribed 
in its second article, and that the attention of the Governments of both countries 
may be the more earnestly directed to the adoption of all proper measures for a 
speedy and amicable adjustment of the differences and disputes in regard to said 
territory ; 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby 
authorized, at his discretion, to give to the Government of Great Britain the notice re- 
quired by the second article of the said convention of the sixth of August, eighteen 
hundred and twenty-seven, for the abrogation of the same. 

"Approved April 27, 1846." 

IV. By resolution of the Senate, authorizing the President to give notice. 

In his annual message of December 4, 1854, President Pierce referred to the unsatis- 
factory situation respecting the Danish Sound dues and intimated his wish for author- 
ity to give notice to terminate the treaty.^ Though this was a message to Congress and 
not to the Senate alone, the Senate in executive session on March 3, 1855, unanimously 
passed such a resolution.* Acting under this authority, the President on April 14, 
1855, gave notice to Denmark of the desire to terminate the treaty. 

This action of the President, under authority of a Senate resolution alone, gave rise 
to a notable debate in the Senate in the spring of 1856. Charles Sumner, on February 
28 of that year, introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Foreign Relations 
to consider the expediency of some act of legislation "having the concurrence of both 

1 Richardson's Messages, IV, p. 395. s Richardson's Messages, IX, 430. 

2 IX U. S. Stat. L., 109. < Ex. Journal, IX, 430. 



300 TERMIlSrATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Houses of Congress by which the treaty with Denmark, regulating the payment of 
sound dues, may be effectively abrogated, in conformity with the requirements of the 
Constitution, under which every treaty is a part of 'the supreme law of the land' and 
in conformity with the practice of the Government in such cases; and especially to 
consider if such legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order to supply a defect in 
the notice of the purpose of the United States to abrogate the said treaty, which the 
President has undertaken to give to Denmark, without the authority of an act of 
Congress and in disregard of the function of the House of Representatives, in the 
abrogation of all existing laws." ^ 

On March 6, 1856, Sumner called up this resolution ^ and made a speech in which he 
argued that this act of the President, based on the resolution of the Senate, was "uncon- 
stitutional and usurpative." Under the Constitution treaties are made by the Presi- 
dent by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Constitution does not 
say treaties may be so terminated. Treaties under the Constitution are the supreme 
law of the land, therefore no one but Congress may abrogate them — not the President 
alone, nor the President and Senate alone, but the President, Senate, and House of 
Representatives acting jointly. Congress alone can declare war. The President and 
the Senate can not do this, and, therefore, as the abrogation of a treaty may lead to war 
the President has no power under the Constitution to take any action Avhich may lead 
to it. Sumner then quoted Story and Judge Iredell, as already given (pp. 3, 6, supra). 

Senator James Mason, of Virginia,^ chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
supported the right of the President and Senate to give notice as provided by the 
treaty, and drew a distinction between abrogation and repeal and the termination of a 
treaty by notice. From his point of view, the President alone might terminate a 
treaty upon notice. Sumner's views were upheld by Senators Seward of New York, 
Fessenden of Maine, Crittenden of Kentucky, and Steward of Michigan. Senator 
Toucey, of Connecticut,* said that the treaty-making power of the Federal Government 
can not abrogate a treaty without assent of the foreign Government with which the 
treaty is made, though with the consent of the foreign Government it can abrogate 
any treaty by the substitution of a new one for the old. He held that the President 
and Senate can terminate on notice, but that it required an act of Congress to abrogate 
a. treaty. "Contracting party," the words used in the treaty, meant the President 
and Senate, and in this case the treaty was terminated, not abrogated. Senator Col- 
lamer, of Vermont,^ said that the treaty, in relation to the foreign Government, is a 
contract, but in relation to the United States it is a law. If we abrogate a treaty, we 
are not absolved from the possible damages arising thereunder. There are only two 
methods of terminating a treaty, viz., first, by substituting an old one by a new one, 
and second, by act of Congress. All treaties must therefore be terminated or abrogated 
by Congress. Senator Toucey, speaking again, ^ held that the treaty-making power 
could give notice; the President alone could not terminate on notice, but such, notice 
must have the sanction of the Senate. 

Sumner's resolution went to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Senator 
Mason was chairman, and on April 7, 1856, that committee reported a resolution 
that the notice given by the President, pursuant to the resolution of the Senate, 
was sufficient.'' A month later. May 8, 1856,^ Sumner made another speech in sup- 
port of his original attitude, and there was considerable further discussion, partici- 
pated in. among others, by Judah P. Benjamin, who made a brief but effective 
speech in support of Sumner's argument.** 

Senator Mason made numerous efforts to have his resolution considered, and July 
22, 1856, his motion to proceed to the consideration of his resolution and report was 
defeated by a vote of 16 to 20 , ^ ° and the resolution was never heard from again . Though 
no determination of this question was reached by the Senate, the arguments advanced 
proved so conclusively that the Senate alone has not the power to repeal or abrogate a 
treaty, or even to authorize its termination on notice, that there is no record of any 
subsequent resolution by the Senate alone authorizing the President to give notice of 
the termination of a treaty. 

V. By notice from the President, subsequently '^adopted and ratified" by joint resolution. 

It is not surprising to find that during the period of the Civil War, when executive 
power was so much extended, notice of the desire to terminate a treaty was given by 
the President without any previous action by Congress. On November 23, 1864, 

1 Cong. Globe, 34 Cong., 1st ses., pp. 577-8, Feb. 28, 1856. 6 lb., 604. 

2 Ibid., 599, et seq. . 'lb., 826. 

3 lb., 601. 8 lb., 1146-1158. 

4 lb., 602. ' Eib., 1156. 
6 lb., 603. "^Ib., 1700. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 301 

notice was given to Great Britain of tlie desire to terminate the agreement of 1817, 
relative to vessels of war on the Great Lakes, at the expiration of the six months stipu- 
lated in the treaty for its termination on notice. By a joint resolution, approved 
February 9, 1865, Congress "adopted and ratified" this notice "as if the same had 
been authorized by Congress." Before the six months had elapsed, however, the 
notice was withdrawn by the President, and the arrangement since the date of with- 
drawal has been recognized as of full force and effect. The act of February 9, 1865, 
follows: ^ 

"JOINT RESOLUTION To terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regulating the 

naval force on the Lakes. 

"Whereas the United States of the one part and the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland of the other part, by a treaty bearing date April, eighteen hundred and 
seventeen, here regulates the naval force upon the Lakes, and it is further pointed 
out that ' if either party shall hereafter be desirous of annulling this stipulation 
and should give notice to that effect to the other party it shall cease to be binding 
after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice ' ; and 
"Whereas the peace of our frontier is now endangered by hostile expedition against 
the commerce of the Lakes, and by other acts of lawless persons, which the naval 
.force of the two countries allowed by the existing treaty may be insufficient to 
prevent; and 
"Whereas, further, the President of the United States has proceeded to give the notice 
required for the termination of the treaty by a communication which took effect 
on the twenty-third day of November, eighteen hundred and sixty -four ; therefore, 
"Be it resolved by theSenate and House of Representatives of the Zhiited Statesin Congress 
assembled, That the notice given by the President of the United States to the Govern- 
ment of Great Britain and Ireland to terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and 
seventeen, regulating the naval force upon the Lakes, is hereby adopted and ratified 
as if the same had been authorized by Congress." 
Approved, February 9, 1865. 

VI. By notice from the President, without any prior or subsequent act of Congress.^ 

In addition to the case just cited, there is the case of the notice given to the Swiss 
Government on March 23, 1899, of the intention to ternflnate articles 8 to 12 of the 
treaty of November 25, 1850. This is the sole instance so far discovered of action by 
the President without previous or subsequent act by one or other of the Houses of 
Congress. 

VII. By a new treaty superseding one of prior date. 

This method of repealing a treaty is so commonly resorted to as to require no com- 
ment, other than that clauses are usually inserted in the new treaty to the effect that 
the previous treaties or parts of treaties iij conflict with the provisions of the new 
treaty are superseded thereby. (See Moore's Digest.) 

Our diplomatic history is not without precedents that should serve as a guide in 
emergencies like the present. When in 1876 the Government of Great Britain 
attempted to restrict the application of the extradition provisions of the treaty of 
1842 between the United States and that nation by seeking to control its interpretation 
by the provisions of an act of Parliament passed in 1870. President Grant and Secre- 
tary of State Hamilton Fish protested energetically. President Grant declared it 
to be intolerable that a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament passed 
in 1870 could qualify or restrict the application of an international agreement entered 
into in 1842 and faithfully observed by both parties to it without dissent for almost a 
generation. 

When long continued and patient remonstrance had no effect, President Grant, on 
June 20, 1876, sent a special message to Congress, in which he recited the facts at issue 
and added that pending Great Britain's refusal to execute the existing treaty, he would 
not take any action, without an expression of the wish of Congress that he should do 
so, either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals 
under that treaty. He further asked Congress in its wisdom to determine whether 
the particular article in question should be any longer regarded as obligatory on the 
United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. This was equivalent 
to a notice to Great Britain that unless Congress directed otherwise. President Grant 
would suspend the operation of the extradition clause of the treaty of 1842 because of 
the violation of its terms by the Government of Great Britain. 

1 United States Stat. L., vol. 13, Pt. II, p. 568. 

2 Moore's Digest, V, 283-285, and Foreign Relations, 1899, 753-757. 



302 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

The unqualified stand taken by President Grant that one of the parties to a treaty 
could not change or alter its terms or construction or attach new conditions to its exe- 
cution without the assent of the other, resulted in the withdrawal by Great Britain of 
her contention, and on December 23, 1876, President Grant was able to announce to 
Congress that Great Britain was prepared to observe the extradition clause of the 
treaty in accordance with the interpretation put upon it by the United States. 

In this case, the question at issue affected merely the extradition of fugitive crimi- 
nals, yet President Grant deemed it of sufficient importance practically to suspend 
the operation of a clause of a treaty when he considered that its terms had been violated. 
The question at issue between the United States and Russia in vol ves not a mere matter 
of the extradition of criminals but a fundamental right of American citizenship. In 
the two cases involving, on the one hand, the extradition provisions of the treaty of 
1842 with Great Britain, and, on the other hand, the travel and sojourn provisions of 
the treaty of 1832 with Russia, the points at issue are almost precisely similar. Great 
Britain, after observing the treaty for nearly 30 years, attempted by an act of munici- 
pal legislation to Limit or change the rights which were conceded to the United Slates 
by treaty; Russia, after a similar period of faithful observance of the treaty of 1832, his 
for a generation persistently violated the letter and spirit of the treaty on a like pretext. 
We have seen what action President Grant took in 1876. In 1911 the treaty with Rus- 
sia is still permitted to remain in force. 

Following are the salient parts of the messages: 

[Extract, Message;ofiJunei20, 1876.Ii 

It appears from the correspondence that the British Government bases its refusal to 
surrender the fugitive and its demand for stipulations or assurances from this Govern- 
ment on the requirements of a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament, 
passed in the year 1870. 

The act was brought to the notice of this Government shortly after its enactment, 
and Her Majesty's Government was advised that the United States understood it as 
giving continued effect to the existing engagements under the treaty of 1842 for the 
extradition of criminals, and with this knowledge on its part, and without dissent 
from the declared views of the United States as to the unchanged nature of the recipro- 
cal rights and obligations of the two powers under the treaty. Great Britain has con- 
tinued to make requisitionsj&nd to grant surrenders in numerous instances, without 
suggestion that it was contemplated to depart from the practice under the treaty 
which has been obtained for more than 30 years, until now, for the first time, 
in this case of Winslow, it is assumed that under this act of Parliament Her Majesty 
may require a stipulation or agreement not provided for in the treaty as a condition 
to the observance to Her Government of its treaty obligations toward this country. 

This I have felt it my duty emphatically to repel. 

* • • • * « • 

The position thus taken by the British Government, if adhered to, can not but be 
regarded as the abrogation or annulment of the article of the treaty on extradition. 

Under these circumstances it will not, in my judgment, comport with the dignity 
or self-respect of this Government to make demands upon that Government for the 
surrender of fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requisition of that character from 
that Government under the treaty. 

It will be a cause of great regret if a treaty which has been thus far beneficial in its 
practical operation, which has worked so well and so efficiently, and which, notwith- 
Btandtng the exciting and at times violent political distu.rbances of which both 
countries have been the scene during its existence, has given rise to no complaints on 
the part of either Government against either its spirit or its provisions, should be 
abruptly terminated. 

It has tended to the protection of society and to general interests of both countries. 
Its violation or annulment would be a retrograde step in international intercourse. 

I have been anxious and have made the first effort to enlarge its scope and to make a 
new treaty which would be a still more efficient agent for the punishment and pre- 
vention of crime. At the same time I have felt it my duty to decline to entertain 
a proposition made by Great Britain, pending its refusal to execute the existing 
treaty, to amend it by practically conceding by treaty the identical conditions which 
that Government demands under its act of Parliament. In addition to the_ impossi- 
bility of the United States entering upon negotiations under the menace of an intended 
violation or a refusal to execute the terms of an existing treaty, I deemed it inadvisable 
to treat of only the one amendment proposed by Great Britain while the United States 

1 Richardson, Messages, Vol. VII, p. 371. 



TERMINATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832, 303 

desires an enlargement of the list of crimes for which extradition may be asked and 
other improvements which experience has shown might be embodied in a new treaty. 
It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine whether the article of the treaty relating 
to extradition is to be any longer obligatory on the Government of the United States 
or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. Should the attitude of the British 
Government remain unchanged, I shall not, without an expression of the wish of 
Congress that I should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions 
for title surrender of fugitive criminals under the treaty of 1842. 

[Extract, message of December 23, 1876.] i 

Article XI of the treaty of 1842 provided that "the tenth article [that relating to 
extradition] should continue in force until one or the other of the parties should signify 
its wish to terminate it, and no longer. " 

In view, however, of the great importance of an extradition treaty, especially 
between two States as intimately connected in commercial and social relations as are 
the United States and Great Britain, and in the hope that Her Majesty's Government 
might yet reach a different decision from that then attained, I abstained from recom- 
mending any action by Congress terminating the extradition article of the treaty. I 
have, however, declined to take any steps under the treaty toward extradition. 

It is with great satisfaction that I am able now to announce to Congress and to the 
country that by the voluntary act of Her Majesty's Government the obstacles which 
had been interposed to the execution of the extradition article of the treaty have been 
removed. 

' Richardson, Messages, Vol. VII, p. 415. 
19831—11 20 



APPENDIX IV.i 



THE PASSPORT QUESTION IN CONGRESS, 1879-1909. 

The American Jewish Year Book for the year 5665, pages 283-305, contains an article 
on the American passport in Russia. This consisted in the main of extracts from the 
Foreign Relations of the United States and disclosed the firm stand which our Depart- 
ment of State has always taken respecting the recognition in Russia of the American 
passport. In that article, however, reference was made to only two resolutions of 
Congress upon this question, than which none is of more importance to the Jews in 
this country. It has seemed well, therefore, to supplement the valuable article 
referred to by giving in the following pages all the resolutions introduced into or passed 
by either branch of Congress upon this subject, and a few other documents pertinent 
thereto. 

The first instance recorded is that growing out of the case of a natm-alized citizen, 
Theodore Rosenstraus, whose name appears frequently in the diplomatic correspond- 
ence from 1873 to 1879. The resolution reads as follows: 

"[H. Res. 77. Forty-sixth Congress, first session, June 11, 1879.] 
"JOINT RESOLUTION In relation to treaty negotiations with Russia as to American citizens. 

"Whereas it is alleged that by the laws of the Russian Government no Hebrew 
can hold real estate, which unjust discrimination is enforced against Hebrew citizens 
of the United States resident in Russia; and 

"Whereas the Russian Government has discriminated against one T. Rosenstraus, 
a naturalized citizen of the United States, by prohibiting him from holding real estate, 
after his pm-chasing and paying for the same, because of his being an Israelite; and 

"Whereas such disabilities are antagonistic to the enlightened spirit of our insti- 
tutions and age, which demand free exercise of religious belief and no disabilities 
therefrom; and 

"Whereas the Secretary of State, under date of April 28, 1879, expresses doubt of 
his ability to grant the relief required under existing treaty stipulations : Therefore 

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the rights of the citizens of the United States 
should not be impaired at home or abroad because of religious belief; and that if 
existing treaties between the United States and Russia be found, as is alleged, to 
discriminate in this or any other particular as to any other classes of our citizens the 
President is requested to take immediate action to have the treaties so amended as 
to remedy this grievance." 

Passed the House of Representatives, June 10, 1879. 

The next resolution was introduced by Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York, and appears to 
have been brought about by the threatened expulsion from St. Petersburg of James G. 
Moses: 

"[Jan. 26, 1882.] Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incom- 
patible with the public service, be requested to communicate to this House all corre- 
spondence between the Department of State and the United States minister at St. 
Petersburg relative to the expulsion of American Israelites from Russia and the per- 
secution of the Jews in the Russian Empire." 

Reported back favorably and passed January 30, 1882. 

It was in response to this resolution that President Arthur, on May 2, 1882, trans- 
mitted the diplomatic correspondence with Russia in reference to Jews which had 
passed between 1872 and 1882. (47th Cong., 1st sess., Ex. Doc. No. 192.) 

Mr. Cox introduced further resolutions as follows: 

"[July 31, 1882.] Whereas the Government of the United States should exercise 
its influence with the Government of Russia to stay the spirit of persecution as directed 
against the Jews, and protect the citizens of the United States resident in Russia, and 
seek redress for injuries already inflicted, as well as to secure by wise and enlightened 

1 Reprint from the American Jewish Year Book, 5670. 
304 



TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 305 

administration the Hebrew subjects of Russia and the Hebrew citizens of the United 
States resident in Russia against the reciu-rence of wrongs: Therefore 

^'■Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incompatible with the 
public service, report to this House any fiu-ther correspondence in relation to the 
Jews in Russia not already communicated to this House." 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

On February 19, 1883, he submitted the same resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs and reported back favorably on February 23, 1883, and 
passed. 

"[Jan. 8, 1884.] Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incom- 
patible with the public service, communicate to this House all communications 
between the Government of Russia and that of the United States, not heretofore 
communicated, with respect to the condition and treatment of Hebrews by the 
Government of Russia, especially with reference to Hebrew citizens of the United 
States." 

Reported back favorably, and adopted on February 25, 1884. 

"[Dec. 20, 1886.] Resolved, That the President of the United States, if not incom- 
patible with the public service, communicate to this House all correspondence in the 
Department of State between that department and our minister to Russia, or between 
the minister and the Russian Government, in relation to the conduct of the said 
Russian Government in the treatment and expulsion of S. Michelbacher, an American 
citizen who was expelled from Russia on account of his being a Hebrew; and further, 
if not incompatible with the public service, to communicate all other correspondence 
in the department between our Government and that of Russia, in relation to the 
condition or expulsion of Hebrews who are Americans from the territory of Russia." 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

For six years Congress took no further action until Mr. J. Logan Chipman, of Michi- 
gan, introduced the following: 

" [H. Res. No. 94. Fifty-second Congress, first session, Feb. 29, 1892.] 

"To inquire into the operation of the anti-Jewish laws of Russia on American citizens. 

^^ Resolved, By the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States is directed 
to inform Congress, whether by the laws and regulations of the Empire of Russia, 
concerning Jews, any American citizen of that faith is subject to restrictions as to 
residence and business in said Empire, which violate the provisions of article 1 of the 
treaty of 1832, between the United States and said Empire, and whether said laws 
and regulations are held by the Government of Russia to supersede, so far as American 
citizens of the Jewish faith are concerned, the provisions of the said treaty, permitting 
sojourn and residence of inhabitants of the United States in all parts whatsoever of the 
territories of Russia, in order to attend to their own affairs." 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and reported on April 6, 1892, as 
follows: 

" [H. Report No. 1000. Fifty-second Congress, first session.] 

"The subject of the resolution is of great concern to the people of the United States. 
It seeks to ascertain the status of American citizens of Jewish faith in the Empire of 
Russia. Every citizen of the Republic is entitled at home and abroad to the exact 
treatment and protection which are the full right of citizenship under the Constitution 
and our treaties with foreign powers. Our Government can make no distinction based 
on creeds or birthplaces of its citizens, nor can it permit such distinction to be made 
by foreign powers. Not the religion nor race of a ]Derson but his American citizenship 
is the grand test of the treatment he shall receive and the rights he shall enjoy in other 
countries. 

"The peculiar laws and ordinances of the Empke of Russia have created great 
uneasiness among Ainerican citizens of Jewish faith. Whatever we may think of 
those laws and ordinances as part of the domestic policy for the government of the 
Russian Jews, we can not tolerate their application to any American citizens of any 
religious faith or race. As between Russia and the United States they are simply 
inadmissible, if they are designed to control the conduct and to define the rights of 
any of our people who resort to that Empire for the peaceful purposes of commerce or, 
for any other purpose recognized by civilized nations ; but when laws are aimed at a 
sect, a religious belief, or, what is the same thing, at the people who profess that 
belief, it is apparent that the reasons which prompt such action may extend to and 
embrace foreigners of the same belief, and of the same people. 



306 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

"The apprehensions of American citizens in this respect, if not founded on certainty, 
are at least natural. The laws oi Russia regarding Jews engaged in commercial 
pursuits are of a character which is inimical to fair and free intercourse between that 
people and other peoples of the Empire. They restrict the places of residence, the 
pursuits to be followed, the cities to be resorted to, and prescribe regulations as to 
time of residence and membership of local guilds which would practically exclude 
American Jews from enjoying the benefit of the treaty provisions between this country 
and Russia if they are applied to citizens of the United States. The joint resolution 
under consideration seeks a solution of the question by inquiries directed to the 
executive branch of the Government. 

In order to understand the true state of the question, it is well to refer to article 1 
of the treaty of 1832 between the United States and Russia. It prescribes: 

"There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce and navigation. The inhabitants of these respective States 
shall mutually have liberty to enter the ports, places, or rivers of the territories of 
each party wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to 
sojourn and reside in all parts whatever of said territories in order to attend to their 
affairs and they shall enjoy to that effect the same security and protection as natives 
of the country where they reside on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- 
nances there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning 
commerce." 

This treaty stipulation between civilized nations would seem to have but one 
meaning and to admit of no discrimination in favor of some and against other citizens 
of either of the high contracting parties; but what claim Russia may make under 
the clause in regard to "security and protection" and the "condition of their sub- 
mitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and particularly to the regu- 
lations in force concerning commerce," is the question. 

Is the "security and protection" accorded to a native Russian Jew the "security 
and protection" to be accorded to an American citizen of Jewish faith? Are the 
restrictions placed on the Russian Jew as to commerce part of the "laws and ordi- 
nances" to be submitted to and to be regarded under the treaty as "regulations in 
force concerning commerce?" These are problems of serious concern to the American 
Jews, who, as men of commercial pursuits, feel that all avenues of trade should be 
open to them and, as American citizens, that they should stand abroad, as they do 
at home, on an exact equality with other children of the Republic. 

The committee are certain that a discrimination can not legally be made against 
them, and that if it is made practically it would be a violation of the treaty and an 
unfriendly act toward the United States on the part of Russia. They are not pre- 
pared to believe that that nation will assume this attitude, but they deem it wise to 
have the matter authoritatively settled by an inquiry of the executive branch of the 
Government of the United States. 

This much is due to the commercial greatness, the usefulness, and patriotism of 
the American Jews. Their apprehensions may be ill-founded, and Russia may not 
make the monstrous claim that her laws relating to Jews are applicable to a citizen of 
this country, but it is well to know what the fact is and to ascertain the position of 
our own Government in the premises. 

On June 10, 1892, Mr. Irvine Dungan, of Ohio, introduced the following joint 
resolution: 

"[H. Res. 140. Fifty-second Congress, first session.] 

" Directing tlie severance of diplomatic relations with Russia. 

'^Resolved, By the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States is hereby 
directed to sever our diplomatic relations with the Russian Government till such, 
time as that Government shall cease discrimination against the Hebrews because of 
their religious faith, and remove the arbitrary and brutal restrictions now imposed 
upon them against the protest of the civilized world." 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

In the next year Mr. Isidor Rayner, of Maryland, introduced the following: 

" [H. Res. 184. Fifty-second Congress, second session. May 28, 1894.] 
"Relating to the Russian treaty. 

"Whereas in the treaties and conventions now existing between the United States 
of America and the Government of Russia it is provided that the inhabitants of each 
country shall mutually have the liberty to enter, sojourn, and reside in the respective 



TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 307 

territories of eacli other, and to that effect shall enjoy the same security and protec- 
tion as natives of the country wherein they reside ; and 

"MTiereas the Government of Russia has singled out a certain class of citizens and 
inhabitants of the United States and forbidden them from sojourning or residing in 
or entering into the territory or dominions of Russia on account of their religious 
faith; and 

" Whereas the severest penalties are visited upon those who in any manner violate 
this edict of the Russian Government so that an American citizen of the prescribed 
faith, with an American passport, who should cross the borders of Russian territory 
would, under the penal code of Russia, be subjected to the most cruel punishment 
without the privilege of trial by jury; and 

"Whereas the Government of Russia has lately refused, in any manner, to modify 
its policy in this respect, and has, through its minister and representatives, refused 
to an eminent citizen of the United States the right to enter upon its territory, for a 
peaceful purpose and upon a mission of mercy, because he came under the ban of 
religious exclusion, hereinbefore referred to, and for no other reason; and 

"Whereas such action, persistently pursued by the Government of Russia, is in 
violation of the law of nations, and in direct breach of the treaties, conventions, and 
stipulations that now exist between this Government and the Government of Russia : 
Therefore 

''Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States be, and he 
is hereby, authorized and directed to make a demand upon the Government of Russia, 
that citizens of the United States shall have the same right of entry, travel, and sojourn 
in the territory of Russia that citizens of Russia have in the territory of the United 
States, and that no citizen of the United States shall be deprived of that right by 
reason of his religious faith. That the President is further directed to call the atten- 
tion of the Government of Russia to its continued violation of the treaty rights between 
said Government and the Government of the United States, by its refusal to allow 
citizens of this country the same rights of entry, travel, and sojourn that Russian citi- 
zens are allowed in our territory. 

"Sec. 2. That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted by the President, with 
said demand and modification, and that upon a failure upon the part of the Russian 
Government to comply with said demand and abide by its treaty obligations with 
the Government of the United States, the President of the United States shall there- 
upon give notice to the Government of Russia of the termination of all treaties between 
the Government of Russia and the Government of the United States, and from and 
after said notice all treaties and conventions between said Governments shall be 
abrogated and determined." 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

Nearly three years later Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, of Boston, submitted the following: 

" [Res, 25. Fif ty-flfth Congress, first session, Mar. 31, 1897.] 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to demand from the Russian 
Government that the same rights be given to Hebrew American citizens in the matter 
of passports as now are accorded to all other classes of American citizens, and also 
inform the House of Representatives whether any American citizens have been ordered 
to be expelled from Russia or forbidden the exercise of the ordinary privileges 
enjoyed by the inhabitants, because of their religion." 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

On December 4, 1899 (56th Cong., 1st sess.), Mr. Fitzgerald submitted a resolution 
(H. Res. No. 4) worded exactly as the above. 

In 1897, when the Russian charge refused to vise the passport of Adolph Kutner, 
a California banker, for the reason that he was a Jew, Senator J. C. Perkins introduced 
the following, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations : 

" [S. Res. 109. Fifty-fifth Congress, first session, May 25, 1897.] 

"Whereas a refusal by the charge d'affaires of the Russian legation to vise a pass- 
port, duly issued by the Department of State to an American citizen, has raised the 
question of invidious distinction by the Russian Government against certain Ameri- 
cans who are among the most useful, intelligent, and patriotic of the people of the 
United States; and 

"Whereas Prince Lobanow, imperial minister of foreign affairs, under date of 
August 12, 1895, informed the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg that the 
'Imperial Government, having already many millions of Jewish subjects, only admits 
their cogeners of foreign allegiance when they seem to present a guaranty that they 



308 TERMIIMATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

will not be a charge and a parasite element in the State, but will be able, on the con- 
trary, to be useful to the internal development of the country'; and 

"Whereas the citizen refused admission to Russia is one of the wealthiest and most 
progressive and most public-spirited of the residents of California, and in no way 
liable to become a charge upon the Russian Government, but able, if a resident, to 
be useful to the internal development of that country; and 

"^Vhereas said citizen simply desired to visit Russia for the purpose of seeing 
relatives and not for the purpose of permanent residence; and 

"Whereas refusal to vise his passport seems to have been based on the single fact 
that he professes the Jewish and not a Christian faith, which is contrary to the defini- 
tions given by the imperial minister of foreign affairs to the class of persons who are 
prohibited from entering the Russian dominions; and 

"Whereas the apparent contradictions between the theory and the practice of the 
Russian Government give rise to the suspicion that a certain class of our citizens 
are excluded from the benefits of travel and temporary sojourn in Russia, simply 
because of their religious belief ; and 

"Whereas such distinction would be abhorrent to all people who believe in the 
right of men to worship according to the dictates of conscience: Therefore 

"Resolved, That this Government request the Imperial Government of Russia to 
specifically declare whether American citizens are excluded from Russia on account 
of their religious faith; and if so, that said Imperial Government of Russia be requested 
to remove such prohibition and to permit Americans of whatever religious faith to 
visit Russia, if they are not liable to become a charge upon the Empire by reason of 
poverty or an inability to support themselves by honest labor." 

This was followed by a resolution introduced by Mr. Cm:tice H. Castle, of California, 
which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: 

" [H. Res. 12G. Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, December 9, 1897.] 

"Whereas the Imperial Government of Russia forbids American citizens of the 
Hebrew faith the ordinary privileges enjoyed by other American citizens, of travel 
or residence within the confines of the Russian Empire: Therefore 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to demand of the Russian Gov- 
ernment that it accord the same rights and privileges to said citizens as to other Ameri- 
can citizens." 

In 1902 Representative Henry M. Goldfogle introduced the first of his important 
resolutions on this subject: 

" [H. Res. 183. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, March 28, 1902.] 

"Resolved hy the House of Representatives of the United States, That the Secretary 
of State be, and he is hereby, respectfully requested to inform this House whether 
American citizens of the Jewish religious faith, holding passports issued bj^ this 
Government, are barred or excluded from entering the territory of the Empire of 
Russia, and whether the Russian Government has made, or is making, any discrimi- 
nation between citizens of the United States of different religious faiths or persuasions, 
visiting or attempting to visit Russia, provided with American passports; and whether 
the Russian Government has made regulations restricting or specially applying to 
American citizens, whether native or naturalized, of the Jewish religious denomi- 
nation, holding United States passports, and if so, to report the facts in relation thereto, 
and what action concerning such exclusion, discrimination or restriction, if any, 
has been taken by any department of the Government of the United States." 

Amended by adding the words "if not incompatible with the public interest" after 
the word "House" on the third line. 

Debated and passed, April 30, 1902. (See American Jewish Year Book 5665, 
pp. 302-303.) 

On June 27, 1902, Senator E. W. Pettus, of Alabama, submitted the following 
resolution : 

"[S. Res. 284. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. June 27, 1902.] 

"Whereas it is asserted that American citizens, holding American passports, have 
been and are excluded by the Russian Government from its territory, solely because 
of their religious belief, contrary to treaty stipulations: Therefore 

"Resolved, That the President of the United States is requested, if not incom- 
patible with the public interest, to inform the Senate as to the attitude of the Russian 
Government toward American citizens attempting to enter its territory with American 
passports." 

Debated and passed. 



TEEMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 309 

In 1904 Mr. Goldfogle renewed his efforts, and introduced the following: 
"[H. Res. 113. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, January 4, 1904.] 

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the people of the United States that uniform 
treatment and lorotection should be accorded to every American citizen, regardless of 
race or creed, when traveling or sojourning abroad, and that every earnest effort should 
be made by the executive department of this Government to secure from the Imperial 
Government of Russia such uniformity of treatment and protection, especially in 
the recognition and honoring of the passports held by our citizens, to the end that 
there be no discrimination made by the Government of Russia between American 
citizens on the ground of their religious belief or faith; and the President of the United 
States is hereby respectfully requested to take such steps and cause such diplomatic 
negotiations to be set on foot as may tend to secure, through means of treaty or other- 
wise, the honoring and the uniform recognition by the Russian Government and its 
authorities of American passports, irrespective of the religious faith or denomination 
of their holders, to the end that every law-abiding citizen provided with a passport 
duly issued by this Government shall, regardless of what may be his race, creed, or 
religious faith, have freedom in traveling and sojourn in the territory of Russia, 
subject to such provisions in any treaty between the United States and Russia as are 
not consistent with the spirit and intent of this resolution." 

This resolution was discussed by Messrs. Martin Emerich of Illinois, H. M. Goldfogle 
and F. Burton Harrison of New York, and Alfred Lucking of Michigan. On February 
18 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs granted a hearing on the resolution and on 
April 16 reported the followijig substitute, which was unanimously adopted on the 
21st: 

"[H. Res. 113. Rept. No. 2531. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, Apr. 16, 1904.] 

^^ Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations with the govern- 
ments of colmtries where discrimination is made between American citizens on the 
ground of religious faith or belief, to secure by treaty or otherwise uniformity of 
treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by the 
authorities of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have equal 
freedom of travel and sojourn in those countries, without regard to race, creed, or 
reUgious faith." 

In conformity with the terms of this resolution the following dispatches passed 
between Secretary of State Hay, Ambassador McCormick, and Count Lamsdorff: 

[Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormicli:.] 

Department op State, Washington, July 1, 1904. 

Sir: On the 21st of April last the House of Representatives of the United States 
adopted a resolution in the following words: [Here follows the resolution just given.] 

The subject to which this resolution relates has heretofore been the occasion of friendly 
but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part of that 
of the United States. The instructions on file in your office 8.nd the correspondence 
had by your predecessors with the imperial foreign office leave no doubt as to the 
feeling of the Government of the United States in regard to what it has constantly 
believed to be a needlessly repressive treatment of many of the most reputable and 
honored citizens of the United States. Similar views have been expressed, by my 
predecessors as well as by myself, in conferences with the representatives of Russia 
at this capital. That these friendly representations have not hitherto produced the 
results so befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two countries for more 
than a century and so much in harmony with their traditional amity and mutual 
regard, is not in the President's judgment, ground for relaxing endeavors to bring about 
a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency and reciprocal convenience. 

I have therefore to instruct you to inform Count Lamsdorff that the text of the fore- 
going resolution has been sent to you for your information and for your guidance in 
interpreting this expression of the feeling of the perople of this country, through their 
direct representatives, as to the treatment of the citizens in question. You will make 
known to his excellency the views of this Government as to the expediency of putting 
an end to such discriminations between different classes of American citizens on 
account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themsleves of the common 
privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or travel. 

That such discriminatory treatment is naturally a matter of much concern to this 
Government is a proposition which his excellency wilL readily comprehend without 
dissent. In no other country in the world is a class discrimination applied to our 
visiting citizens. That the benefits accruing to Russia are sufficient to counter- 
balance the inconveniences involved is open to question from the practical stand- 
point. 



310 TERMIISrATION OP THE TEEATY OF 1832, 

In the \dew of the President it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to 
the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business, whose 
character and position in life are such as to afford in most cases a guaranty against 
any abuse of the hospitality of Russia and whose intelligence and sterling moral 
qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and entitle them to win 
for themselves abroad a no less degree of esteem than they enjoy in their own land. 
I have, etc., 

John Hay. 
(Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 790.) 

[Mr. MeConnick to Count Lamsdorfl.] 

American Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, August 22, 1904. 

Your Excellency: Under instructions from my Government which I found await- 
ing me on my return from Carlsbad, I have the honor to bring before you for consider- 
ation at this time a subject which has been the occasion from time to time of friendly 
but sincerely earnest representations to the Russian Government on the part of that 
of the United States. 

The feeling of the people of the United States, which is deep and widespread with 
reference to this subject, found expression in a resolution adopted on the 21st of April 
last by the House of Representatives. 

I assume that your excellency's attention was called to this resolution at the time 
of its adoption, by His Excellency Count Cassini, His Imperial Majesty's ambassador 
in Washington, and that a copy of the resolution was*tran3mitted to you for your 
information. As your excellency doubtless noted at the time, this resolution is con- 
ceived in a temperate spirit and expressed in moderate terms, such as to recommend 
its reception in a similar spirit as well as the consideration of the subject which it 
brings forward. 

The text of this resolution was sent to me for my information in interpreting this 
expression of the feeling of the Anaerican people as to the treatment of the citizens in 
question, and I here beg to insert the resolution as placing that expression on record, 
although, as above indicated, a copy of the resolution has already been transmitted to 
you by Count Cassini (see above). 

This resolution voices not only the feelings of the people, but also a principle which 
lies at the foundation of our Government. It is for this reason that the question has 
been, is, and always will be a live question with us and liable to become acute and be 
brought forward at some time in such a way as to seriously disturb the friendly rela- 
tions which have always existed between Russia and the United States. . 

Aside from the belief that the treatment accorded by Russia to manj; of our most 
reputable and honored citizens is needlessly repressive, public opinion, as your 
excellency knows, plays a large part in the foreign relations as well as domestic affairs 
with us, and when underneath this public opinion there lies an important principle, 
as is the case in the United States, it can not be left out of account by those who have 
maintained the close relations which it is desired by my Government to see main- 
tained with this great Empire and her august ruler. 

"That friendly representations," as is set forth in my instructions, "have not 
hitherto produced results befitting the close intimacy of the relations of the two 
countries for more than a century, and so much in harmony with their traditional 
amity and mutual regard, is not, in the President's judgment, ground for relaxing 
endeavors to bring about a better understanding, if only on the score of expediency 
and reciprocal convenience." 

Moreover, in no other country in the world is class discrimination applied to our 
visiting citizens, nor can it be seen, from the practical standpoint, that the benefits 
accruing to Russia are sufficient to coimterbalance the inconvenience involved. In 
the view of the President, "it is not easy to discern the compensating advantage to 
the Russian Government in the exclusion of a class of tourists and men of business 
whose character and position in life are such as to offer in most cases a guarantee 
against any abuse of the hospitality of Russia, and whose intelligence and sterling 
moral qualities fit them to be typical representatives of our people and to win for 
themselves abroad a no less degree of esteem than they enjoy m their own land.'' 

It seems to me that there are higher grounds to which to appeal, and to which it is 
opportune to appeal at this time, than those of expedience and reciprocal convenience, 
evidences of the influences of which have manifested themselves in steps already 
taken toward the alleviation of the condition of the representatives of the race referred 
to within the Empire. 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 311 

At this time, too, when the world is extending its congratulations to His Majesty 
on an event which has brought happiness to himself and gratification to his friends; 
when he is extending the Imperial clemency to some, justly under the ban of the 
law, it would seem fitting to take under consideration this larger question, a solution 
of which would not only tend to draw closer the relations between this great Empire 
and the United States, but also to arouse a responsive feeling of good will throughout 
the world. 

The railway and the telegraph are breaking down the barriers of distance which 
have until now kept apart the peoples of the various nations of the earth; Russia has 
made a notable contribution to this object in the great system of railways constructed 
within the Empire, which are operated in close connection and harmony with those 
of the outside world. 

To throw this great railway system open more fully to those who would avail them- 
selves of it for legitimate purposes, is but to dedicate it to a use which would be of 
the greatest good to the Empire and the world at large. 

Events have proven that no artificial barrier can keep out those who come with 
hostile intent or who, from without, seek to circulate ideas of hostile character. Is 
there any reason, therefore, why at least serious consideration should not now be 
given to the views of my Government as to the expediency of putting an end to such 
discriminations as now exist in Russia between different classes of American citizens 
on account of their religious faith when seeking to avail themselves of the common 
privilege of civilized peoples to visit other friendly countries for business or for travel? 

In transmitting the views of my Government at this length, and personally adding 
some reasons for favorable action which seem to me to be cogent, I have been actuated 
by the desire, as your excellency will appreciate, to contribute something toward 
those friendly relations which have marked the past and which I value. For this 
reason I lend myself most earnestly to the work of carrying out my Government's 
instructions, in the hope that the result will be such as to contribute to the removal 
of one question of disturbing character from the realm of discussion by a mutually 
satisfactory understanding concerning it. 

I take this occasion to renew to your excellency the assurance of my high considera- 
tion. 



(Foreign Relations 1904, p. 791.) 



Robert S. McCormick. 



[Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay.] 

Americak Embassy, 
St. Petersburg, October 7, 1904. 
Sir; I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy and translation of a note 
received from Count Lamsdorff, imperial minister for foreign affairs, in reply to mine 
of August 22 last, relating to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives 
of the United States on April 21 last, concerning "the freedom of travel and sojourn in 
Russia, without regard to race, creed, or religious faith," of all American citizens, 
which was transmitted to me in your dispatch No. 127, of July 1 last. 
I have, etc. 

Robert S. McCormick. 



[Count Lamsdorff to Mr. McCormick.] 

Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 

St. Petersburg, October 4, 1904. 
Mr. Ambassador: It is with special interest that I have become acquainted with 
the consideration expressed by your excellency in your note of the 9/22d of August, 
relative to certain facilities to be granted to American citizens of Hebrew faith with 
regard to their entry into Russia. In this connection I have the honor to inform you 
that a special commission has been instituted by supreme order on December 17, 1903, 
with the ministry of the interior, in view of generally revising the passport regulations 
actually in force. 

The imperial ministry of foreign affairs having appointed a representative with this, 
commission, I shall not fail to bring, through his intermediary, to the knowledge of 
that commission your views on the subject and the desire of the Federal Government 
of which your excellency has been the interpreter. 
I avail, etc. 

Lamsdorff. 
(Foreign Relations 1904, p. 793.) 



312 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Nothing further was done in Congress until 1908, when Mr. Goldfogle introduced 
the following: 

" [H. Res. 223. Sixtieth Congress, first session, Feb. 4, 1908.] 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of State be, and he hereby is, requested to communi- 
cate to this House, if not incompatible with the public interests, the corresiDondence 
relating to negotiations with the Russian Government concerning American passports 
since the adoption of the resolution by the House of Representatives relating to that 
subject on the twenty-first day of April, nineteen hundred and four; and also a copy 
of the circular letter issued by the Department of State to American citizens advising 
them that upon the Department receiving satisfactory information that they did not 
intend to go to Russian territory, or that they had permission from the Russian Govern- 
ment to return, their application for passport would be reconsidered; and also a copy 
of the notice accompanying such letter issued by the Department of State, dated 
May twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred and seven." 

This was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reported on February 
11, through Mr. A. B. Capron, of Rhode Island. It was discussed by Representatives 
F. B. Harrison, of New York, who favored its passage, and by Representative F. _0. 
Lowclen, of Illinois, who opposed it, and by a vote of 120 yeas to 101 nays the resolution 
was, on motion made by Mr. Capron, laid on the table. This action was taken at the 
instance of Secretary of State Root, who, on February 8, had written to Mr. Capron, 
"it is not deemed compatible with the best public interests at this time to communi- 
cate the subsequent correspondence." 

On January 18, 1909, Mr. Goldfogle introduced the following joint resolution; 
which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed: 

[H. J. Res. 235. Sixtieth Congress, second session.] 

" Concerning and relating to the treaty between the United States and Russia. 

"Whereas in the treaty between the United States of America and the Govern- 
ment of Russia it is provided that the inhabitants of the respective countries shall 
mutually have the liberty of entering, sojourning, and residing in all ports of the 
respective territories of each other, and they shall enjoy to that effect the same 
security and protection as natives of the country wherein they reside; and 

"Whereas the Government of Russia refused from time to time to recognize or 
honor the passports of the United States issued to and held by American citizens, 
on account that such citizens were of Je-vinsh faith, and refused to permit the holders 
of such passports to sojourn or enter in the temtory or the domain of the Russian 
Government solely on account of and because of their said religious faith; and 

"\\Tiereas after the Government of Russia persistently_ refused to vise American 
passports held by law-abiding American citizens, placing its refusal upon the ground 
that the holders "of such passports were of Jewish faith, the House of Representatives 
of the United States of America, on the twenty-first day of April, nineteen hundred 
and four, adopted a resolution in the following words: 

" 'Resolved, That the President be requested to renew negotiations withthe Gov- 
ernments of countries where discrimination is made between American citizens on 
the ground of religious faith or belief to secure, by treaty or otherwise, uniformity 
of treatment and protection to American citizens holding passports duly issued by 
the authorities of the United States, in order that all American citizens shall have 
equal freedom of travel and sojourn in those countries without regard to race, creed, 
or religious faith'; and 

"WTiereas after the passage of such resolution, and in the year nineteen hundred 
and fom-, this Government duly communicated such resolution to the Russian Gov- 
ernment, and then sought to secure from the Government of Russia such action as 
would end the discrimination made by Russia between different classes of American 
citizens on account of their religious faith in the honoring of American passports, to 
the end that all American citizens holding our passports should have equal freedom 
of travel and sojom-n without regard to race, creed, or religious faith; and 

"Whereas the Government of Russia has persistently continued up to the present 
time to refuse to vise, recognize, or honor passports presented to its authorities issued 
by the American Government to American citizens on the ground that the holders 
thereof were of the Jewish faith: Therefore be it 

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, 
directed to renew negotiations with the Government of Russia to secure, by treaty 
or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens holding 
passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that all 



TEBMIlsrATIOISr OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 313 

American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojom-n in such country 
without regard to race, creed, or religious faith, and to demand and insist that the 
honoring or viseing of passports when duly issued and held by citizens of the United 
States shall not be withheld because or on account of the race, creed, or religious 
faith of their holders. 

"Sec. 2. That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the Russian Govern- 
ment with such demand and insistence, and that upon the failure of the Russian 
Government to abide by its treaty obligations with the Government of the United 
States, and to comply with said demand, the President of the United States shall 
give notice under and pursuant to article twelve of the treaty between the United 
States and the Emperor of all the Russias, ratified on the eleventh day of May, in 
the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three, of the intention of the United States 
to arrest the operation of said treaty, and thereupon, pursuant to such official noti- 
fication and at the period fixed after giving such official notification under said 
article twelve, the said treaty and convention between the United States and Russia 
shall be deemed ended and determined." 

This resolution was amended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to read as 
follows : 

"Whereas it is alleged that the Government of Russia has continued up to the 
present time to refuse to vise, recognize, or honor passports presented to its authorities 
issued by the American Government to American citizens on the ground that the 
holders thereof were of the JcAvish faith: Therefore be it 

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, 
directed to renew negotiations with the Government of Russia to secure, by 
treaty or otherwise, uniformity of treatment and protection to American citizens 
holding passports duly issued by the authorities of the United States, in order that 
all American citizens shall have equal freedom of travel and sojourn in such country 
without regard to race, creed, or religious faith, including a provision that the honor- 
ing or viseing of passports when duly issued and held by citizens of the United States 
shall not be withheld because or on account of the race, creed, or religious faith of 
their holders." 

It was reported to the House on February 15, and on February 27 Representative 
A. J. Sabath, of Illinois, made a speech favoring the passage of the resolution as origi- 
nally introduced. On March 1 the resolution, as amended by the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, was discussed by Messrs. Goldfogle, Harrison, and Parsons, of New 
York, and Hitchcock, of Nebraska, and passed. It passed the Senate on March 3 and 
was signed by the President on the next day.^ 

Though the additional data given below do not come strictly within the purview 
of this article, they are of significance as showing the trend of American opinion on 
the subject, and are therefore inserted in order to complete the record. 

In September, 1905, at the conclusion of the peace negotiations between Japan and 
Russia, President Roosevelt wrote to Count Witte as follows: 

Oyster Bay, N. Y., September 10, 1905. 

My Dear Mr. Witte: I beg you to accept the accompanying photograph with my 
hearty regards. ^ •, 

I thank you heartily for the message you gave liie from His Majesty announcing 
his generous purpose of interpreting the most-favored-nation clause hereafter so that 
America shall stand on an equality with other powers in this regard. 

Will you, I pray, present to His Majesty my warm acknowledgments for this act? 

In furtherance of our conversation of last evening I beg you to consider the question 
of granting passports to reputable American citizens of Jewish faith. I feel that if 
this could be done it would remove the last cause of irritation between the two nations 
whose historic friendship for one another I wish to do my best to maintain. You 
could always refuse to give a passport to any American citizen, Jew or Gentile, unless 
you were thoroughly satisfied that no detriment would come to Russia in granting it. 
But if your Government could only see its way clear to allowing reputable American 
citizens of Jewish faith, as to whose intentions they are satisfied, to come to Russia, 
just as you do reputable American Christians, I feel that it would be from every stand- 
point most fortunate. 

Again assuring you of my high regard, and renewing my congratulations to you and 
to your country upon the peace that has been obtained, believe me. 
Sincerely, yours, 

Theodore Roosevelt. 

1 For resolutions of 1911 see pp. 256-257 supra. 



314 TEKMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

Inteenatioxal Law and the Discriminations Practiced by Russia Under the 
Treaty of 1832, by Arthur K. Kuhn.^ 

Article I of the treaty with Russia, concluded December 18, 1832, pro\dde3: 

"There shall be between the territories of the high contracting parties a reciprocal 
liberty of commerce and na^'igation. The inhabitants of their respective States shall 
mutually have Liberty to enter the ports, places, and rivers of the territories of each 
party, wherever foreign commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn 
and "reside in all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their affairs, 
and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and protection as natives of the 
■coimtry wherein they reside, on condition of their submitting to the laws and ordi- 
nances' there prevailing, and particularly to the regulations in force concerning com- 
merce." (U. S. Treaties in Force, 1904,' p. 660.) 

The Government of Russia has taken the position that a treaty of commerce and 
intercourse, such as that of 1832 with the United States, grants no greater rights to 
citizens of the United States than is accorded to Russian citizens of the same "class" 
in Russia. Accordingly, a citizen, whether native born or naturalized, professing 
the Jewish faith, is denied a right of entry upon the sole ground that Russian subjects 
of the same faith are likewise denied the pri^^.lege of free ingress, egress, and residence 
in Russia. 

The most meager reflection leads inevitably to the conclusion that if this contention 
were permitted to prevail as a guiding principle of international relations, not a single 
treaty in force with reference to the protection of the rights of citizens of one country 
within the territory of another could be deemed any longer the source of any definite 
rights or privileges. However definite might be the right or pri\dlege granted by 
treaty to the citizens of a foreign state, it could be rendered nugatory simply by deny- 
ing the right or pri\ilege to native citizens. 

The acceptance of any such principle would revolutionize the relations of states 
upon the basis of conventions, and would extend the class distinctions made in one 
nation, beyond the borders of that nation, to the territory of every other nation with 
which it had treaty relations affecting aliens. 

Russia fijst asserted the theory in 1862 in its diplomatic correspondence with Lord 
RusseU, representing the British foreign department. No report of this corre- 
spondence is to be foimd in the published record of British State Papers, but it is 
referred to, however, in the correspondence which passed in 1880 with reference to 
the case of Lewisohn, a British subject of Jewish faith, who was expelled simply by 
reason of the creed which he professed. Lord Granville at first took a \igorous stand 
against any discrimination, writing to the British ambassador that "The treaty 
between this country (Great Britain) and Russia of the 12th January, 1859, applies to 
-all Her Majesty's subjects alike, \vithout distinction of creed." (British State Papers, 
vol. 73, p. 833.) 

For some reason, which does not clearly appear. Lord Granville afterwards surren- 
dered his position in the matter and followed the precedent of 1862 and insisted only 
that British subjects should be placed on the same footing as Russian subjects of the 
game "class." He did not admit the correctness of the principle as a guide for the 
interpretation of the treaty; he simply did not desire to overrule his predecessor. 
Indeed, he clearly enunciated the choice of principle which was involved, for he says: 
"The treaty is no doubt open tcr-two possible constructions: The one, that it only 
assures to British subjects ot any particular creed the same pri\ileges as are enjoyed 
by Russian subjects of the same' creed; the other, that the pri\'ileges are accorded to 
aU alike without regard to the rehgious body to which they belong." (British State 
Papers, vol. 73, p. 845.) It has since become apparent that diplomatic considerations 
induced Great Britain to refrain from insisting on the construction of the treaty which 
she herself deemed correct. 

In striking contrast to the weak position finally taken by the British Government 
upon this question, prompted probably by considerations of policy and expediency 
rather than of international legal justice, was the attitude taken at the same time by 
the United States with reference to the same contention. The reporter of the British 
State Papers has included in the report of the correspondence in the Lewisohn case 
an abstract of the correspondence passing between our Secretary of State, William M. 
Evarts, and Minister John W. Foster, in 1880, with reference to the attempted expul- 
sion of Henry Pinkos, an American citizen of Jewish faith. In Mr. Evarts's letter of 
June 28, 1880, he said: 

1 Prepared by request for the board of delegates on civil rights of the Union of American Hebrew Congre- 
gations and the Independent Order B'nai B'rith. Mr. Kuhm is a member of the New York bar, is 
translator of Meili's International Civil and Commercial Law, and American editor of Burge's Colonial and 
Foreign Law, and sometime lecturer on private international law at Columbia University, New York. 



TERMINATION OP THE TEEATT OF 1832. 315 

" In reply I have to observe that in the presence of this fact, that an American citizen 
has been ordered to leave Russia on no other ground than that he is the professor of 
a particular creed, or the holder of certain religious \ieArs, it becomes the duty of the 
Government of the United States, which impartially seeks to protect all its citizens of 
whatever origin or faith, solemnly, but with all respect to the Government of His 
Majesty, to protest. As this order of expulsion applies to all foreign Jews, in certain 
towns or localities, at least, of Russia, it is of course apparent that the same is not 
directed especially against the Government of which Mr. Pinkos is a citizen, and, 
indeed, the long-standing amity which has united the interests of Russia with those 
of this Government would of itself forbid a remote supposition that such might be the 
case. Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, the United States could not fail to 
look upon the expulsion of one of its citizens from Russia, on the simple ground of 
his religious ideas or couAictions, except as a grievance, akin to that which Russia 
would doubtless find in the expulsion of one of her own citizens from the United 
States on the ground of his attachment to the faith of his fathers." (Foreien Relations 
of the United States, 1880, p. 876.) 

"^Tiile the correspondence with reference to the attempted expulsion of Pinkos was 
proceeding, Pinkos left Russia with his family, because '"he had made up his mind 
that Russia was no place for one of his creed, and that he proposed to establish himself 
in Liverpool or return to the United States." Xotwithstanding this fact, ^Ir. Evarts 
had determined not to let the matter rest. No true American can read his final letter 
of instructions, dated September 4, 1880, without strong sentiments of pride and satis- 
faction at the brave, as well as just, position assumed by our Secretary-. The letter 
so clearly sets forth the true interests and traditional policy of the United States with 
reference to the protection of its citizens in foreign countries that it will be well to 
the purpose to quote his letter in full (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1880, 
p. 880): 

Department of State, 
Washington, September 4, 1880. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of Mr. Hoffman's No. 23 of the 11th ultimo in 
the Pinkos case. 

Notwithstanding the tenor of your No. 9 and of your note to the department of July 
24th last, as to the inexpediency of presently appealing to the Government of the 
Czar in the sense of the instruction of June 28th last, touching the expulsion of citi- 
zens of the United States from Russia (or certain cities thereof) by reason of their reli- 
gious convictions, the stat<^ments of Mr. Hoffman's No. 23, of August 11th last, are 
such that the Government of the United States would seem indifferent to the cause 
of its citizens in Russia did it neglect to make immediate remonstrance as set forth 
in said instruction of June 28th. Mr. Hoffman's inference from the facts connected 
with Mr. Pinkos' departure from Russia is that Mr. Pinkos had made up his mind 
that Russia "was no place for one of his creed." 

If the meaning of this is that a citizen of the United States has been broken up in 
his business at St. Petersburg simply for the reason that he is a Jew rather than a 
believer in any other creed, then it is certainly time for this Government to express 
itself as set forth in the instruction above mentioned. It should be made clear to the 
Government of Russia that in the view of this Government the religion professed by one 
of its citizens has no relation whatever to that citizen's right to the protection of the 
United States, and that in the eye of this Government an injury- officially dealt to 
Mr. Pinkos in St. Petersburg on the sole ground that he is a Jew presents the same 
aspect that an injury officially done to a citizen of Russia in New York for the reason 
that he attends any particular church there would to the vtiew of His Majesty's Gov- 
ernment. 

It is evident that the losses incurred by the abandonment of his business in St. 
Petersburg will afford Mr. Pinkos ground for reclamation, if no other cause can be 
shown for the official breaking up of his said business than the religious views he 
entertained. 

The direct application to have ^Ir. Pinkos indemnified, however, may be deferred 
vmtil he shall make it appear what those losses were. 
I am, sir, etc., 

"Wm. M. Evarts. 

The policy thus established was ably supported and reasserted by Mr. Blaine. 
In a letter dated July 29, 1881, to ^Ir. Foster, he reviewed the treatment of alien Jews 
in Russia since the reign of the Empress Catherine and disposed of the contention 
made by Russia in the following terms (Foreign Relation of the United States, 1881, 
p. 1033): 



316 TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OP 1832. 

"These question of the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations 
are among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists, and it 
is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a privilege for aliens in express 
terms it can not be limited by the operation of domestic law without a serious breach 
of the good faith which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conven- 
tional engagement in favor of the citizens of another State exists, the law governing 
natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable." 

The State Department has consistently refused to accept the principle now con- 
tended for by Russia, not only in our diplomatic relations with that country, but also 
with other countries as well. 

Prior to the constitution of Switzerland of 1874, under which religious equality is 
now guaranteed as effectually as in the United States, subjects of Jewish faith were 
prohibited from establishing themselves in certain Cantons and were under heavy 
disabilities in others. Representations were made to Switzerland by several Euro- 
pean countries, as well as by the United States, in reply to which these Cantons 
maintained the right to impose the same disabilities on subjects of foreign nations 
with which Switzerland had concluded treaties of friendship, commerce, and inter- 
course as were imposed on natives of the same class in Switzerland. In opposition to 
this contention, Mr. Seward, our Secretary of State, entered into a voluminous corre- 
spondence with Mr. Fay, the American representative in Switzerland, instructing 
him to insist upon the rights of American Jews notwithstanding the disabilities under 
which the particular Cantons had placed Jews of Swiss origin. 

It must be recalled that the treaty under which the Swiss Cantons had maintained 
their contention was couched in language much more favorable to their position than 
anything contained in the treaty of 1832 with Russia. The treaty with Switzerland 
of 1855 had been, at the time of its adoption by the Senate, the subject of opposition by 
iPresident Fillmore. In his message transmitting the treaty to the Senate, he objected 
seriously to the form in which it was presented and said : 

"On account of the tenor of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland, Christians 
alone are entitled to the enjoyment of the privileges guaranteed by the present article 
in the Swiss Cantons. But said Cantons are not prohibited from extending the same 
privileges to citizens of the United States of other religious persuasions. 

" It is quite certain that neither by law, nor by treaty, nor by any other official pro- 
ceeding is it competent for the Goverimaent of the United States to establish any dis- 
tinction between its citizens founded on differences in religious beliefs. Any benefit 
or privilege conferred by law or treaty on one must be common to all, and we are not 
at liberty, on a questionof such vital interest and plain constitutional duty, to consider 
whether the particular case is one in which substantial inconvenience or_ injustice 
might ensue. It is enough that an inequality would be sanctioned hostile to the 
institutions of the United States and inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. 

" Nor can the Government of the United States rely on the individual Cantons of 
Switzerland for extending the same privileges to other citizens of the United States as 
this article extends to Christians. It is indispensable not only that every privilege 
granted to any of the citizens of the United States should be granted to all, but also 
that the grant of such privilege should stand upon the same stipulation and assurance 
by the whole Swiss Confederation as those of other articles of the convention." (Rich- 
ardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. V, p. 98.) 

In the form in which Article I of the treaty was finally ratified the objection of 
President Fillmore was only partially met. It reads as follows: 

"The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens of Switzerland shall 
be admitted and treated upon a footing of reciprocal equality in the two countries, 
where such admission and treatment shall not conflict with the constitutional or legal 
provisions, as well Federal as State and Cantonal of the contracting parties." Then 
follow the provisions relating to free establishment, exercise of commerce, etc. 
(United States Treaties in Force, 1904, p. 769.) 

Mr. Fay, under instructions from the Secretary of State, left no stone unturned to 
obtain for American citizens of the Jewish faith the same rights and privileges as were 
accorded to American citizens generally, and personally prepared a petition addressed 
to the various Cantons of Switzerland in behalf of his contention. This petition was 
translated into French and German and widely circulated throughout Switzerland. 
It was reported as an executive document. (No. 76, 36th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 12, p. 
67.) It is not necessary to refer to it at length inasmuch as Mr. Fay was prevented 
from relying upon the strictly legal rights of the United States because of the peculiar 
limitations which it contained. The entire incident is m^ade the subject of aspecial 
paper read before the American Jewish Historical Society by Mr. S. M. Strook in 1903, ' 
"Switzerland and the American Jews." (Publications of the American Jewish His- 
torical Society, 1903, p. 7.) 



TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 317 

It is sufficient to say that Mr. Seward continued throughout to demand the removal 
of discriminations made on account of religious faith, notwithstanding the unfavorable 
language of the treaty of 1855. He continued his instructions along this line to Mr. 
Fay's successor, Mr. Fogg, who cooperated with the French Government. France at 
that time was particularly energetic in demanding full treaty rights to its citizens of 
Jewish faith. In 1851 Louis Napoleon, through the French minister at Berne, sent a 
note in which he stated that France would expel all Swiss citizens established in France 
in case the two Cantons (Basle city and county) would insist on carrying out their law 
prohibiting the establishment of French citizens of the Jewish faith on their territory. 
(AUgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, Dec. 15, 1851; Jan. 1, 1852; S. M. Strook, op. 
cit., pp. 12-13.) The matter was finally referred to a commission of the Senate of the 
Second Empire and in 1864 a report was made through the chairman of the commission, 
Ferdinand de Lesseps, in the following terms: 

"No distinction may be recognized in the enjoyment of civil and political rights 
between a French Jew and a French Catholic or Protestant. This equality of rights 
must also follow a citizen beyond the frontier; and the principles of our Constitution 
do not authorize the Government to protect its subjects in a different manner according 
to which faith he professes." (See Debats Parlementaires, 1909, p. 3779.) 

As a result of this movement, the French Government finally repudiated the prior 
treaties which were unsatisfactory in failing to guarantee equal treatment to all French 
citizens, and a new treaty was obtained from Switzerland in which such a guaranty 
was expressly made by recognizing "the right of French subjects, without distinction 
of faith or worship, to travel, sojourn, and transact all lawful business, as freely as 
Swiss Christian residents of other Cantons may do. " (Foreign Relations of the United 
States, 1864, p. 401.) 

The victory which French diplomacy had won over the ilHberalism of the Swiss 
Cantons solved the problem of the United States Government as well. In reporting 
upon the result of the ratification of the French treaty, the United States minister, 
Mr. Fogg, wrote to Mr. Seward, as follows: 

"The treaty just ratified secures, it is true, only the rights of French Jews, but 
it will be followed by treaties with other powers, and must, in the end, enfranchise the 
whole race, since the Swiss authorities having taken the first step in a movement so 
obviously just, and so imperatively demanded by the spirit of the age and their own 
position as the vanguard of liberty in Europe, they can not recede, but must go for- 
ward." (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1864, p. 402.) 

The correspondence of the Department of State with other countries besides Russia 
discloses a consistent policy against permitting local discriminations in foreign coun- 
tries to operate unfavorably upon our citizens because of religious belief. Thus, in 
1897, an application was addressed by the United States consul at Jerusalem to the 
Turkish officials in charge of the land department there for permission on behalf of one 
Lowenstein, a United States citizen, to purchase a small property consisting of a house 
and some land. The application was denied on the ground that Lowenstein was a Jew, 
and, under Ottoman law, prohibited from holding land. Under the sanction of Mr. 
Sherman, United States Secretary of State, a remonstrance was addressed to the 
Sublime Porte and a nullification of the order was demanded : 

"If an American citizen be denied the right to acquire real estate in this Empire on 
the ground that he is alleged to be of a certain religious faith, the duty of the minister 
to his Government would require him to protest against such discrimination as inad- 
missible. Equal rights under reaties are claimed for all American citizens, regardless 
of the faith they profess." (Mr. Angell, United States minister, to Turkish minister of 
Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1898, p. 1104.) 

The action of Mr. Angell was approved by the Department of State, and Mr. Sher- 
man afterwards expressed his gratification at the result of the remonstrance. (Ibid.) 

The United States has heretofore insisted upon the treaty rights of its citizens, 
irrespective of discriminations in foreign countries made not only on account of reli- 
gion, but also on account of race or color. Thus, in June, 1882, Mr. Freliaghuysen , 
our Secretary of State, in writing to Mr. Hamlin, minister to Spain, called attention 
to the fact that the Spanish consul general at New York had refused to vise the Ameri- 
can passport of a colored citizen oif the United States on the ground of his color. It 
seems that the refusal to vise was arbitrary, and the vise was ordered to be granted 
by the Spanish Government. The Secretary of State nevertheless took occasion 
to remark that there would be no good reason why a negro resorting to Cuba bearing 
a passport as an American citizen should be refused admission or be met by legal 
prohibitive measures such as depositing large sums as a guaranty. He afterwards 
stated that if a case should be brought to his notice the department would remon- 
strate against it "as imposiag a race discrimination not affected by treaty or recog- 
nizable under the amended Constitution." (Moore, International Law Digest, 
vol. 4, p. 109, quoting from MSS. Inst. Spain XIX, p. 139.) 



318 TERMINATION OP THE TREATY OF 1832. 

The normal relation of states, especially under conditions of modern life, even 
in the absence of treaty, is one of free intercourse. This was recognized by Vattel 
as early as the seventeenth century, when he contrasts the condition of China and 
Japan with that of Europe, where "the access is everywhere free to every person 
who is not an enemy of the state." (Droit des Gens, 1, ii, c. viii, s. 100.) 

We would not wish to be understood as denying the theory of international law 
that in the absence of treaty each State has the right to exclude aliens from its soU. 
This right is commonly spoken of as one of the essential attributes of sovereignty. 
However, when rights of entry or residence have been extended by treaty to the 
subjects of a foreign nation, all the subjects of that nation are entitled to the benefit 
of the treaty, even though incidentally they receive greater privileges under it than 
native subjects. 

There is not lacking substantial Eiu*opean authority for the principle that religious 
liberty may be predicated in favor of aliens on the basis of treaties. G. F. von Martens, 
the great German publicist and diplomatist, who made the law of treaties his special 
study, says (translating from his Precis du droit des gens, 2d ed., 1864, vol. 1, p. 121): 

"The degree of liberty accorded to other religions than those of the particular state 
differs according to the fundamental laws and treaties in effect with foreign powers and, 
in default of them, it depends upon the will of each state guided by principles of a wise 
tolerance. This is true also with regard to the tolerance accorded religious sects 
which have no connection with the religion of the country, such as the Socinians, the 
Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, etc., and rarely any question arises in the 
foreign relations of European countries as to their rights, as well as those of the Jews.'' 

Even Russian authority is in substantial accord. Prof. F. de Martens, late presi- 
dent of The Hague Peace Congress, and probably the most distinguished Russian 
authority of our generation on international law, seems to have been in substantial 
accord, although he may have been unwilling to effectuate the principle by applica- 
tion in practice. In his Traits de droit international (translated from the Russian 
into French by A. Leo, 1883, vol. 1, p. 447) he asserts that the state has complete 
power over aliens in its territory and the conditions on which it will admit them. It 
may not place them, however, beyond the protection of law, nor subject them to gen- 
eral expulsion. Any nation guilty of this would take itself outside of the community 
of nations. With this exception,* even though the provisions be vexatious orcom- 
pletely different fa'om those prevailing in any other state or countries, or inconsistent 
with a sane or wise political administration, "aliens must nevertheless conform to 
them, unless the provisions respecting them are in opposition to international trea- 
ties." In a footnote he points to the action of Lord Granville in refusing to insist 
upon greater rights for a British subject than accorded to Russian Jews in Russia, to 
which we have already referred at length. He naturally is well satisfied with the Brit- 
ish submission to the Russian contention, though it is difficult to see how the footnote 
in any way illustrates the text. He seems to have considered it a clear departure and 
exception to the principle which he himself enunciates. In concluding this branch 
of his discussion he says (translating): "In reality each Government is free totake 
all measures against aliens which it deems convenient, provided thay do not violate 
its treaties and are not absolutely contrary to international relations." 

As a matter of strict legal right, then, each nation may, in the absence of treaty, 
exclude aliens from its territory or prescribe the conditions upon which it -will admit 
them. But as a matter of comity, friendly intercourse and good faith between nations 
of the international community, the situation is different. Hall well says (Interna- 
tional Law, 5th ed., p. 214): "For the reason also that a State may do what it chooses 
within its own territory so long as its conduct is not actively injurious to other States, 
it must be granted that in strict law a country can refuse the hospitality of its soil to 
any, or all, foreigners; but the exercise of the right is necessarily tempered by the 
facts of modem civilization. For a State to exclude all foreigners would be to with- 
draw from the brotherhood of civilized peoples; to exclude any without reasonable 
or at least plausible cause is regarded as so vexatious and oppressive that a govern- 
ment is thought to have the right of interfering in favor of its subjects in cases where 
sufficient cause does not, in its judgment, exist." 

Hannis Taylor has said that while no State can be compelled to open its doors to 
the citizens of another State, its power of refusing hospitality is subject: "To such 
retaliatory measures as an abuse of the excluding or expelling power may provoke.' 
(International Public Law, p. 231.) 

If such be the trend of modern international law even in the absence of treaty, then 
surely the Russian treaty should be liberally and not strictly construed. Russia pur- 
sues a policy and practice of general exclusion against particular classes of United 
States citizens solelv on account of their religious beliefs, no matter how high their 



TERMINATION OF THE TREATY OF 1832, 319 

character and reputation may be and irrespective of whether they are by any reason- 
able construction detrimental to the interests of Russia, In the Ught of the tendencies 
of modern international relations, this constitutes a clear indication that the treaty 
of 1832 is not being construed by Russia according to that standard of ubberima fides 
which one friendly nation owes to another in the performance of its conventions. 

It ia sometimes suggested that the policy of the United States in excluding the 
Chinese constitutes an argument in opposition to the position which we are here 
urging. Without wishing at this time to discuss the justice or expediency of the 
Chinese exclusion acts in their present state, it ife sufficient for the pmrpose of the pres- 
ent discussion to recall that the exclusion acts required a modification of our treaty 
relations with the Chinese Empire on more than one occasion. Twice did Congress 
attempt to pass bills which under a fair interpretation might have been deemed 
inconsistent with the obligations imder the treaty and twice were such bills vetoed 
by the President. President Hayes vetoed the bill of 1879 as in contravention of the 
provisions of the Buriingame treaty, and President Arthur likewise vetoed the bill 
of 1882 which he termed "a breach of our international faith," because in violation 
of the treaty of 1880. (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. 
VII, p. 514; Vol. VIII, p. 112.) 

Since that time successive acts have been accompanied by such new diplomatic 
arrangements with China as were necessary in order to protect the faith of the United 
States, notably among which was the treaty of December 8, 1894, by which China 
consented to the absolute exclusion of Chinese laborers. 

The denunciation of a treaty is justified where one of the parties has been guilty 
of a substantial breach, or has so interpreted it that the rights and privileges granted 
under it are enjoyed by one side, while the complete performance of its obligations 
is rendered only by the other. (Hall, International Law, p. 352.) Even if we con- 
cede the legal contention made by Russia, the treaty should nevertheless be denounced 
by the one year's notice provided for in the treaty itself (Art. XII). At the time it 
was passed, Russia's attitude toward native as well as alien Jews was favorable and 
very different from that of the past half century. The treaty was not drawn in con- 
templation of any of the discriminations which are now practiced under it. If the 
treaty does wan-ant the interpretations now placed upon its language by Russia (which 
we earnestly deny), it commits the United States to a doctrine which is expressly 
prohibited under its Constitution, its statutes, its fundamental institutions, and its 
historic diplomatic policy. 

Furthemore, if distinctions of race or creed are permitted to enter into the status 
of our citizenship in foreign countries in respect of rights and privileges, it is inevitable 
that distinctions will likewise arise on the side of duties and obligations. The rela- 
tionship of allegiance between the citizen and state is a mutual one. Thus, for 
example, a treaty of amity and friendship between two nations is binding upon all 
citizens and no distinctions among them ought to be or is permissible. Any citizen 
who violates his duty of neutrality subjects himself not only to the loss of his right to 
protection, but also to afiirmative penalties. The Supreme Court has said, in Kennett 
V. Chambers (14 How., 38): 

"For, as sovereigntj^ resides in the people, every citizen is a portion of it * * * 
and when that authority has plighted its faith to another nation that there shall be 
pea<:e and friendship between the citizens of the two countries, every citizen of the 
United States is equally and personally pledged." 

If every citizen is to be "equally and personally" pledged to abide by a treaty of 
amity and friendship, every citizen should likewise be "equally and personally" 
benefited without discrimination under treaties relating to the citizens of his country. 

The treaty thus involves fundamental danger to the equality involved in republi- 
can institutions. It is for that reason that France is likewise awake to the distinction 
which Russia has endeavored to import into French citizenship upon the basis of 
the treaty of 1874 between France and Russia, notwithstanding the plain terms of the 
convention of 1905, which provides that "no distinction shall be made, whatever be 
the religion." On December 27, 1909, a full discussion of these discriminations 
practiced by Russia took place in the French Chamber of Deputies. Mention was 
made of the incident between France and Switzerland during the Second Empire, 
to which we have already referred, as well as to a precedent which occurred shortly 
after the Congress of Vienna of 1815. Austria undertook to treat Ottoman Jews dif- 
ferently from other Ottoman subjects because she treated her own Jews differently 
from her other subjects. The Sublime Porte protested that she could not permit of 
the slightest difference being made between any Turkish subjects, no matter what 
then- creed, and in September, 1815, M. de Metternich gave Turkey satisfaction, and 
thenceforward all Turkish subjects were treated alike. 

19831—11 21 



320 TERMINATIOlSr OF THE TREATY OF 1832. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chamber of Deputies called upon the admin- 
istration to undertake negotiations with Russia for an interpretation which would 
definitely set aside the objectionable discriminations. (Debats parlementaires, 1909, 
pp. 3763-3780; Am. Jewish Year Book for 1911, pp. 66-76.) 

It is dangerous to temporize in respect of legal principle with class, race, or religious 
discriminations. The United States, after a along and bitter struggle, has happily 
extirpated from the body of its organic law all such discriminations affecting its citizens. 
Such discriminations should not be permitted to enter by the back door, as it were, 
through weakness or vacillation in the enforcement of the rights of citizens in Interna- 
tional relations. 



INDEX. 



Abrogation. (See aZso Termination; Treaty of 1832.) Page. 

Best solution of problem (Straus) 72 

Committee almost unanimously in favor of (Sulzer) 96 

No knowledge that financial interests oppose (Straus) 72 

Powers of President and Congress, discussed 41-50 

Adler, Dr. Cyrus: 

Attended conference with President and others May 25, 1910 254 

Conferred with Ambassador Rockhill 252 

Letter to President 253 

Memorandum to President Taft 255 

Affidavits, Russian consul general required, substantiating statements (Cutler). . 52 
Agreement between United States and Russia — relating to corporations, June 

15, 1909, remonstrance against 250-251 

Agreement of 1904-1909, salient points of 251 

Alabama, resolution of legislature 258 

Alexandroff, case of, cited to 268 

Allen, Hon. Alfred G., resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 

American ambassador at St. Petersburg, 1904, efforts to have Russia honor pass- 
ports (Goldfogle) 94 

American ambassador to Turkey: 

Action in behalf of missionaries (Straus) 70, 71 

Invited to Russia (Straus) 71 

Not refused admission to Russia 71, 72 

American citizen, wherever he goes the power of Nation should go and stand 

behind him (Noland) 77 

American citizens, divided into two classes, Americans and Jews. Responsi- 

sibility for this rests upon Congress (Marshall) 41 

American consul in China denied entrance to consulate by Russian soldiers 

(Difenderfer) 104 

American consuls, criticised (Difenderfer) 87 

American-Hebrew congregations: 

Address of Louis Marshall before 266-272 

Board of delegates on civil rights, indorse Sulzer resolutions (Marshall) ... 79 
American-Jewish committee: 

Disinclination of Secretary Knox to treat passport question from standpoint 

of 254 

Its deliberations and conclusions 243 

Letter of executive committee to President Taft 252-253 

Little attention paid to proposals of 250 

Meniorandum of, embodying remarks at conference, May 25, 1910 254 

President Sulzberger recommends to Roosevelt termination of treaty of 

1832 243,247 

Remonstrance against agreement of 1904-1909 unavailing 251 

Remonstrance against proclamation of agreement of 1904-1909 with 

Russia 250-251 

Remonstrances disregarded 252 

Represented at conference with Ambassador Rockhill 252 

Represented at White House conference, February 15, 1911 257 

Request interview with President Taft 253 

American JeAvs, status in Russia if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 80 

American question (Noland) 77 

American question, not a Jewish or Russian question (Cutler) 55 

American rabbis, central conference of, objects and work given by (Foster).. 76 
Americans: 

Treatment of, when passports not visaed (Goldfogle) 95 

Two million, daily insulted by Russia (Silverman) 65 

321 



322 iimEX. 



Appeal to people, American Jewish committee concludes that only hope lay in 

an 256 

Article 1, treaty of 1832, reference to (Sulzberger) 32 

Article 10, treaty of 1832, reference to (Sulzberger) 32-36 

Article 10, treaty of 1832, if it means what Russia claims then no treaty covering 

rights of nonexpatriated Russians (Sulzberger) 36 

Arthur, Chester A., President of United States, message (1883) on refusal of 

Russia to perform treaty obligations (Sulzberger) 246 

Austria-Hungary and Russia, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 

Austrian Government, reply of Secretary Bayard to, in Keily case, referred to 

(Straus) , 68 

Bacon, Robert, Acting Secretary of State: 

Letter of, concerning offensive circular, referred to 61 

Announces withdrawal of offensive circulars 243 

Baptist missionaries. {See Discriminations.) 

Bayard, Secretary of State: 

Letter of expatriation (Marshall) 89-90 

Reply of, to Austrian Government in Keily case, referred to (Straus) 68 

Belgium: 

Termination of treaty with (Marshall) 48 

Treaty with, denounced (Harrison) J03 

Beliefs: Curiosity about beliefs of people when emigrating by a southern route 

(Sulzberger) 36 

Bennet, Hon. Wm. S., remarks of 27 

Bernstein, Bernard, case of 105 

Bernstein, Herman: 

Case of, referred to 258 

Newspaper article by, referred to (Marshall) 50 

Passport visaed at New York, applicant sailed via Russian steamer to Libau 

(Sulzberger) 247 

Bernheim, Isaac W., treasurer American-Jewish committee, letter to President. . 253 

Berry, Bishop, Methodist Episcopal Church, advocated abrogation (Smith) ... 97 

Bettmann, Bernhard: 

Attended White House conference, February 15, 1911 257 

Presents resolution of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations to 

President 256 

Bielostok, disorders at, official communication on 225-227 

Blaine, James G., Secretary of State: 

Dispatch to Minister Foster 129-133 

Dispatch of 1881 quoted (Marshall) 82 

Dispatch of 1881, historical references in (Marshall) 81 

Russian Government unable to make effective reply to 239 

Brennan, A. J. , secretary, letter of (Marshall) 78 

British subjects. {See English subjects.) 

Buchanan, James, negotiated treaty of 1832 239 

Buffalo, mass meeting at (Smith) 96 

Bureaucracy of Russia construed treaty of 1832 as giAdng right to discriminate 

based on creed and religion (Straus) 68 

Bureaucrats, dealing with a small clique of (Harrison) 103 

Burlingame treaty: 

Article 1 quoted (Marshall) 84 

Effect of amendment of 1880 (Marshall) 85 

Referred to (Marshall) 85 

Butler, Charles Henry, reporter. United States Supreme Court, quoted on 

power to abrogate treaty (Marshall) ... — 42-43 

Byrns, Hon. Jos. W. , resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 

Calder, Hon. Wm. M., a Representative from New York, address of 27 

Resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 

California, resolution of legislature 258 

" Caraime " Jews — their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 

Carnegie Hall mass meeting: 

Action taken at, represents American feeling (McAdoo) 4 

Not confined to Jews (McAdoo) 3 

Report of proceedings 5-31 

Resolutions adopted at (McAdoo) 3-4 

Speiakers at (McAdoo) 4 



INDEX. 323 

Page. 

Carpenter, Fred W., Secretary to President, letter of, to Mayer Sulzberger 253 

Case, Rev. Carl D., advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 

Catholics. (See Discriminations.) 

Censorship, Russian (Harrison) 103 

Certificate from rabbi vis^d for 80 cents (Sulzberger) 36 

"Chestnut" — Passport question in same condition at end of. every administra- 
tion (Schiff) 67 

Chile, treaty with, denounced (Harrison) 103 

Chinese immigration (see also Burlingame Treaty): 

Convention of 1894, provisions of, quoted (Marshall) 85-86 

Legislation on subject of, with express consent of Chinese Government 

(Marshall) 84 

No parallel between, and Jews going to Russia (Marshall) 84 

Christian converted to Judaism, Russia would refuse to recognize passport of 

(Goldfogle) 95 

Circular of Department of State, issued May 28, 1907 (Marshall) 59 

Issued by Secretary Root 240 

Concerning passports (Cutler) 54 

Opposition of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Goldfogle to 93 

Protest against (Goldfogle) 60 

Withdrawn by Secretary Root 241-242 

Circular of January 25, 1908 54 

Republished, then "withdrawn " (Marshall) 61 

Substituted for circulars of May 28, 1907 241 

Circular, Russian-American Line of steamships, March 16, 1911 258 

Circulars of May 28, 1907: 

Not discovered for 6 months 240 

Protest against (Marshall and Lauterbach) 241 

Circulars, State Department: 

History of (Marshall) 61 

Letter of Louis Marshall and Edward Lauterbach, concerning 242-243 

"Citizen" — term should be used instead of "inhabitant" (Cooper) 86 

Citizens, interested only so far as they are concerned (Marshall) 83 

' ' Citizens ;' ' term ' ' inhabitants " broader (Marshall) 83 

Citizenship, agitation of passport question will give clearer interpretation of 

(Foster). _ 77 

Citizenship circular issued by Secretary Root 240 

Civil disabilities, real point is whether Congress will continue to permit a large 

section of American people to remain under (Marshall) 50 

Clark, Hon. Champ, Speaker of the House of Representatives, address of 16 

Class of citizens, unthinkable that United States would agree to except any 

(Marshall) 83 

Clergymen. (See Discriminations.) 
Cleveland, Grover, President of United States: 

Message (1895) on refusal of Russia to perform treaty obligations (Sulzberger) 246 

Protest of administration against Russian religious inquisition 239 

Cline, C. , a representative from Indiana, question asked by 88 

Cloak makers. New York City, 90 per cent Jews (Marshall) 87 

Colorado, resolution of legislature 258 

Colton, Right Rev. Charles H., Catholic Bishop of I3uffalo, advocated abroga- 
tion (Smith) 97 

Commerce: 

Congress should not sell birthright of citizens for mess of pottage (Sanders) 74 

Effect upon, by abrogation of treaty of 1832, discussed (Sulzberger) 38 

Commercial relations : 

• Amply safeguarded by agreement of 1904-1909 251 

Between United States and Russia, discussed (Marshall) 87 

Commerce, United States and Russia, 1 per cent of foreign commerce of the 

United States (Sulzberger) 38 

Commissions ceased to deal with subject (Marshall) 40 

Committee on Foreign Affairs: 

Hearings before, on Parsons resolution 272-294 

Hearings before, February 16 and 22, 1911 257 

Report of, April 6, 1892 240 



324 INDEX. 

Page. 
Conference of May 25, 1910: 

Between President, Secretary Knox, Mr. Rockhill, Judge Sulzberger, Mr. 

Schiff, and Dr. Adler 254 

Remarks made at, embodied in memorandum of June 3, 1910 254 

Congress : 

Abrogation by, of all treaties with France (Marshall) 46 

Joint resolution, March 4, 1909, for renewal of negotiations (Goldfogle) 94 

Power to abrogate the treaty rests in (Marshall) 42 

Powers of with reference to abrogation of treaty (McAdoo) 5 

Powers of, in connection with termination of treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 

Said to have plenary power to settle passport question 259 

Should take firm stand on question (McAdoo) 4 

Recognized as real power for abrogation of treaty (Marshall) 49 

Termination of treaty with Belgium by joint resolution of (Marshall) 48 

Termination of treaty with Great Britain by joint resolution (Marshall) ... 48 
Would be quick to act if discriminations were against Americans other than 

Jews (Marshall) 51 

Connecticut, resolution of legislature 258 

Constitution of United States quoted (Cooper) ^ 44 

Consular practices described (Sulzberger) 35-36 

Consular Service criticized (Difenderfer) 87 

Consular treaty between Germany and Russia 259 

Consul general, office of Russian, in New York not Russian territory (Sulz- 
berger) ; 36 

Cooper, Hon. Henry A., a Representative from Wisconsin, questions asked 

by 43-44, 51, 60-61, 83, 86 

Correspondence, diplomatic (Appendix I) 105-238 

Cox, Hon. S. S., calls State Department's attention to expulsion of Hebrews 139 

Craus, Adolph, mentioned (Marshall) 79 

Creed and religion: 

Basis of discrimination by Russian bureaucracy against Americans 68 

No power in United States to discriminate on basis of (Straus) 68 

Creelman, James, Carnegie Hall mass meeting, resolutions read by 5 

Culberson, Hon. Charles A.: 

Energetic advocate of abrogation 257 

Resolution for abrogation of treaty of 1832 257 

Cutler, Hon. Harry: 

Letter to President 253 

Statement of 51-56 

Curley, Hon. James M., a Representative from Massachiisetts : 

Letter of 30-31 

Questions asked by 50 

Day, Mr. Justice, Supreme Court of United States, quoted on power to abro- 
gate a treaty (Marshall) 42 

Declaration of Independence quoted 259 

Democratic platform, 1904, demanded recognition of passport 246 

Democratic platform, 1908, plank on protection of Americans abroad . .* 248 

Department of State, circular issued by (Goldfogle) 93 

Difenderfer, R. E., a Representative from Pennsylvania: 

Question asked by 79, 95 

Incident in China related by 104 

Diplomacy, 40 years of, unavailing (Sanders) ^ 74 

Diplomatic correspondence (Appendix I) 105-238 

Diplomatic negotiations looked upon as a joke (Dorf) 75 

Discrimination: 

Against Americans, based on creed and religion (Straus) -68 

Against United States, abrogation of treaty will call Russia's attention to 

(Marshall) 58 

Greater, against United States than England (Kamaiky) - - 58 

On basis of creed and religion, no power in United States to make (Straus) . 68 

Catholic bishop of Scran ton, Pa., prohibited from entering Russia (Marshall) . 78 

Exclusion of Protestant missionaries from Russia (Marshall) 78 

Prof. Hyvernot, Catholic priest, excluded from Russia (Adler) 80 

Russia makes, against Jews, clergymen. Catholics, missionaries (Straus) 68 

Russian, against Catholics, etc . (Chairman) 65 

Those practiced by Russia practiced by other countries many years ago 

(Elkus) - II 

Turkey follows Russian example in making illustration (Straus), oy 



INDEX. 325 

Page. 

Dispatches, copies of, between State Department and Russia, referred to (Mar- 
shall) 39 

Distinction. {See Religion.) 

Divorces, Russian law on Jewish 219 

"Dollar above the man." {See "Man ahead of the dollar.") 

Domicile of Jews, imperial ukase concerning 151 

Dorf, Samuel: 

President Order of B'rith Abraham, statement of 74-76 

Letter to President 253 

Dudley, Wesley C. , advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 

Duma: 

Established in 1895, a mere subterfuge (Sulzberger) 34 

First and second, excluded from participation in Government of Russia 

(Marshall) 40-41 

Measures granting certain privileges to Jews, referred to 237-238 

Scapegoat of passport question (Marshall) 41 

Unable to assert own rights, much less those of Americans (Harrison) 102 

Durnovo commission: 

Never considered American passport question (Harrison) 102 

Stated in oflScial communications to be studying passport question when 
actually nonexistent (Marshall) 40 

Eddy, Spencer, letter of, showing number of Jews in Russia, their different 
classes, laws governing, etc 228-235 

Elizabethgrad, massacre of 1882 at, referred to (Cutler) 53 

Elkus, Abraham I., statement of 73 

Emigration from Russia. {See Expatriation.) 

Emigration of Jews from Russia : 

Correspondence concerning 151-155, 176-178 

Translation of law regarding 164-166 

Emperor of Russia knows very little of foreign questions (Harrison) 103 

England : 

Adopted expatriation policy of United States (Marshall) 92 

Citizens of, discriminated against (Elkus) 73 

Treaty relations of, with Russia (Marshall) 80 

English subjects protected in Turkey by action of American ambassador (Straus) . 70 

Executive committee, American Jewish Committee: 

Letter of, to President Taft 252-253 

{See American Jewish Committee.) 

Expatriation {see also Russia) : 

Buchanan's ideas on, quoted (Marshall) 89 

Declaration of the American doctrine concerning (Marshall) 59-60 

Policy of United States concerning, adopted by England (Marshall) 92 

Principle embodied in statutes should be written into new treaty (Mar- 
shall) 92 

Right of, guaranteed by Congress (Cutler) 55 

United States takes same view with regard to Russia as of every other civil- 
ized country (Marshall) 92 

Views of Secretary Bayard on (Marshall) 89-91 

Expatriation laws, liability of naturalized citizens under 212 

Expulsion, concerning expulsion of Hebrews holding foreign passports, cor- 
respondence 139-149 

Extradition convention, March 28, 1887, termination recommended (Sulz- 
berger) 245-247 

Extradition treaty of 1842 with Great Britain, attempt to restrict provisions 
protested against 258 

FanueilHall, mass meeting at (Murray) 100 

Federation of churches; favor abrogation of treaty (Marshall) 78 

Field, Justice United States Supreme Court, quoted (Marshall) 44 

Financial aspect. {See Commercial relations.) 

Financial interests, no knowledge that they are opposing abrogation (Straus) . . 72 

Fish, Hamilton, Secretary of State, protests in proposed restriction provisions, 
treaty of 1832 258 

Flood, Hon. Henry D., a Representative from Virginia, questions asked by.. . 50, 

58, 81, 82 

Florida, resolution of legislature 258 

Foreign Affairs {see Committee on) 257 



326 INDEX. 

Page. 
Foreign Jews : 

Sketch of the laws of Russia relative to 126-128 

Their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 

Foster, Hon. David J., a Representative from Vermont, questions asked by.. 50, 55, 58 
Foster, Rabbi Solomon, corresponding secretary Central Conference of Amer- 
ican Rabbis, statement of 76-77 

France: 

Act of Congress abrogating treaties with (Marshall) 46 

Citizens of, discriminated against (Elkus) 73 

Compelled withdrawal of discriminating treaty with England (Elkus) .... 73 

Declared doctrine of equal religious rights (Elkus) 73 

Financial relations with Russia (Marshall) 81 

Treaty with, denounced (Harrison) 103 

France and Russia, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 

Freiberg, J. Walter, attended White House conference February 15, 1911 257 

Frelinghuysen Hon. F. T., Secretary of State, letter of, on treatment of Jews 

in Russia 137 

French Chamber of Deputies, translation and summary of debate in 261-266 

Friedenwald, Herbert: 

Brief by, on termination of treaties 295-303 

Referred to (Cutler) 52-53 

Furth, Jacob, attended White House conference 257 

Garner, Hon. John M., a Representative from Texas, questions asked by 5, 

40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57, 58 

Geary Act referred to 86 

Georgia, resolution of legislature 258 

German Empire and Russia, consular treaty between 259 

Germans favor abrogation (Marshall) 79 

Germany, waiting example of Congress (Marshall) 80 

Ginzberg, Simon, alias John, case of. 191, 206, 211, 212 

Glowacki, Joseph, case of 161, 163 

Goldberg, Benjamin, case of 105 

Goldfogle, Hon. Henry M., a Representative from New York: 

Address of _ 27-30 

Criticizes offensive circulars 241 

Questions asked by 56 

Pleads for abrogation 257 

Resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 

Statement of 92-96, 285-287 

Goldfogle resolution, January 18, 1909: 

Emasculated by Committee on Foreign Affairs 250 

Authority of President under , 45 

Concerning discriminations, reference to (Goldfogle) 94 

Transmitted to Count Lamsdorff by Ambassador McCormick 220-221 

Goldstein, Jacob, case of 155-160, 162 

Goodwin, Hon. W. S., a Representative from Arkansas, questions asked by.. 58, 102 
Graham, Hon. James M. : 

Statement of 287-288 

Pleads for abrogation (Marshall) - - - - 257 

Grant, U. S., President, protest against proposed restriction of extradition 

treaty of 1842 258 

Great Britain: 

Attempt of, in 1876, to restrict extradition provisions, treaty of 1842, pro- 
tested against 258 

Attempts by legislation to limit rights conceded to United States, frustrated . 259 

Termination of treaty of June 5, 1854, with (Marshall) 47 

Termination of treaty of Washington, 1871, with (Marshall) 48 

Great seal of United States attached to passport ought to be honored (Nolan). 77 
Green, Henry, general director National Citizens' Committee; organized Car- 
negie Hall mass meeting - 31 

Grenz, Frederick G., case of 208-211 

Greer, Right Rev. David H., bishop of the Protestant Episcopal diocese of New 

York, address of 14 

Hammerstein, Oscar, case of (Marshall) 79 

Harmon, Gov. Judson, of Ohio, letter of , 30 



INDEX. 327 

Page. 
Harrison, Hon. Francis Burton, a Representative from New York: 

Address of 26 

Pleads for abrogation 257 

Protest of, against circular of May 28, 1907 (Goldfogle) 60 

Resolution by, to abrogate treaty of 1832 257 

Statement of - 101-104, 285 

Hay, John, Secretary of State, following death of, came apparent change of 

attitude _. _ 240 

Hearings (see Committee on Foreign Affairs) : 

On Parsons resolution 272-294 

Hearst, Wm. Randolph, address of 13-14 

Hebrew commercial travelers : 

Austrian 260 

Hungarian passport visaed 260 

Hebrew congregations, board of delegates on civil rights of treatise prepared on 

on international law covering passports presented (Elkus) 73 

Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Alumni Association of (Foster) 76 

Hebrews, expulsion of, holding foreign passports 139-149 

Hirsch, Baron, project of, for emigration of Jews, Russian law regarding 164-166 

Hoban, bishop of Scranton, Pa. , case of T 78 

Hoffman, Wickham, letters to Mr. Blaine 133, 134 

Hollander, Jacob H., vice president American Jewish committee, letter to 

President 253 

Horowitz, Louis J., case of vise of j)assport refused (Sulzberger) 247 

House of Representatives, cooperation of, necessary to abrogate a treaty (Mar- 
shall) 49 

House joint resolution No. 166 3 

House resolution of Apr. 21, 1904 220 

Hyvernot, Prof., case of (Adler) 80 

niinois, resolution of legislature 258 

Immigration. (See Chinese immigration.) 

Imperial ukase concerning domicile of Jews 151 

Imports and exports. United States and Russia (Marshall) 87 

Inaugural address of President Taf t on passport question 250 

Independence Party platform, 1908, plank on protection of Americans abroad . . . 248 
Independent Order B'nai B'rith: 

Favor Sulzer resolutions (Marshall) 79 

Represented at White House conference, Feb. 15, 1911 257 

Treatise on international law covering passports prepared by, presented 

(Elkus) 73 

Independent Order of B'rith Abraham: 

Has 632 lodges (Sanders) 74 

In favor of Sulzer resolutions (Sanders) 74 

' ' Inhabitants " : 

The term, dangerous (Sulzer) 86 

Term might mean citizens of other countries (Cooper) 83 

Term broader than "citizens " (Marshall) 83 

Under treaty of 1883 any inhabitant of Russia could come here (Cooper) 86 

Inheritances: 

Article 10 of treaty of 1832 quoted on, subject of (Marshall) 88 

Diplomatic correspondence concerning (Marshall) 89-91 

Interview. (See also Conference of May 25, 1910.) 
Interview with President: 

By Judge Sulzberger and Mr. Schiff 254 

Requested in letter of executive committee, American Jewish Committee. . 253 

Israelites, licenses issued to German-Russian consul, treaty 260 

Jackson, Andrew, treaty of 1832 negotiated during term of 239 

Jew, converted Christian treated as, by Russia (Goldfogle) '. 95 

Jewish Colonization Society, functions of 164 

Jewish divorces, Russian law on 219 

Jewish population of United States: 

Now 2,000,000 (Sulzberger) 32 

Relatively small when treaty of 1832 negotiated (Sulzberger) 32 

Jewish question: 

Abrogation of treaty of 1832 not a "Je\vish but an American question" 

(Cutler) 55 

This is not a (Straus) 68 



828 INDEX. 

Page. 

Jews : 

{See also Israelites, Hebrew.) 

American and foreign, in Russia, letter of Minister Foster concerning 123 

Compose 90 per cent of cloak makers in New York City (Marshall) 87 

Emigration of, from Russia, correspondence 151-155, 176-178 

Emigration from Russia, translation of law regarding 164-166 

Exclusion from Russia by treaty would remove ground of complaint 

(Marshall) 84 

Imperial ukase, concerning domicile of 151 

In Kishenef , condition of 216-219 

Tn Russia 

Condition of (Marshall) 50 

Czar withholds certain privileges to, and refers matter to Duma 237 

History of, since 1890, reference to (Sulzberger) 35 

Industrial and professional occupations, property owned by, educa- 
tion of, military laws governing, etc. (Eddy) 229-235 

Letter of Hon. Andrew D. White concerning 169-176 

Rights of, outside pale of settlement limited (Marshall) 81 

Their number, classes, laws governing, etc. (Eddy) 228-235 

Those having right of permanent domicile (Eddy) 228 

Those having right to travel and temporary residence (Eddy) 229 

Treatment of 223-227 

"When treaty of 1832 negotiated, enjoyed religious freedom (Marshall). . 81 

Would be better off if treaty abrogated; reasons (Dorf) 75 

Laws of Russia relative to foreign 126-128 

Massacre of i 223 

Native and naturalized citizens of United States should never have had 
relations with Russia; difficult for them to get passports (Sulzberger) ... 36 

Naturalized, passport does not protect (Dorf) 76 

Notice of State Department to (May 28, 1907 ; Root) 240 

Of United States, only redress of grievances through an appeal to American 

people 258 

Passports, refusal to vise (Goldfogle) 93 

Persecution of, correspondence relating to 138 

Refusal of Russian consul to vise passports of, correspondence 178-192 

Religious freedom denied to 222 

Russia could prohibit immigration (Marshall) 84 

Russian edict of 1824 against entry (Marshall) 82 

Russian feeling toward, if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 58 

Russian legislation against (Marshall) 82 

Russia's interpretation of treaty discriminates against (Straus) 68 

Russia's possible excuse for excluding (Marshall) 82 

Status of American, in Russia if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 80 

Treatment of, in Russia, letter of Secretary Frelinghuysen on 137 

Vise of passports withheld from (McAdoo) 4 

Whether formerly Russian subjects or not included in original State De- 
partment circular (Marshall) 59 

Joint resolution: 

For termination of treaty of 1832 (Parsons) 256 

For termination of treaty of 1832 (Sulzer) 257 

Kamaiky, Leon, publisher Jewish Daily News, statement of (Cutler) 56-58 

Keily case, referred to (Straus) 68 

Kendall, Hon. N. E., Representative from Iowa: 

Address of 21-24 

Comment on Geary Act (Goodwin) 86- 

Questions asked by 51, 59, 61, 79, 80, 92 

Kishenef: 

Condition of Jews in 216-219 

Massacre of Jews, 1903; reference to (Sulzberger) 35 

Knox, Philander, Secretary of State: 

Letter of, to President Taft, March 8, 1910 253 

Attitude of, toward precedents 254 

Conference with, May 25, 1910 - 254 

Disinclination to treat passport question from standpoint of American Jew- 
ish Committee 254 

Kosta, Martin, case of, referred to (ilarshall) 50 



INDEX. 329 

Page. 

Kraus, Adolph, attended White House conference 257 

Kuhn, Arthur K.: 

Paper prepared on International Law and the Discriminations Practiced 

by Russia under the Treaty of 1832 314-320 

Landau, Dr. J. H., address of (Smith) 97 

Lauterbach, Edward: 

Letter of, concerning State Department circulars 242-243 

Letter of, objecting to offensive circulars 241 

\Vord "Jews" stricken from State Department circular at instance of (Mar- 
shall) 59 

Laws: 

Of other countries. Provisions for observance of ordinary term in treaties 

(Marshall) - . - " 83 

Of Russia relative to foreign Jews, Minister Foster on 134 

Legare, Hon. Geo. S., a Representative from South Carolina, cjuestions asked 

by 50, 70, 71, 72, 75, 95 

Legislation, Russian, against Jews (Marshall) 82 

Lerin, Mrs. Minnie, case of 167, 168, 170 

Levy, Hon. J. M., a Representative from New York, questions asked by 45, 70 

Levy, Rev. J. Leonard, case of (Marshall) 59 

Lewinsohn, British subject, case of 135 

Libau: 

Jewish citizens en route to, on Russian steamer, exceptidU in favor of 244 

Russian steamer to, Jews sailing on — 

State Department desires proof of exceptions favoring 246 

Proof furnished T 247 

Linthicum, Hon. J. Charles, a Representative from Maryland, letter of 31 

London Standard, article from, on condition of Jews in Kishenef 217-219 

Lothrop, Minister to Russia, letter of Secretary Bayard to, on expatriation (Mar- 
shall) 91 

Luncheon. {See Conference ) 
McAdoo, Wm. G.: 

Chairman Carnegie Hall mass meeting, address of 6 

President of the Hudson Tunnels, statement of 3-5 

McDougal, Elliott C: 

Address of 99 

Spoke favoring abrogation (Smith) 96 

McLeod, Rev. Donald C: 

Stated : "Not a Jewish question ; Equally a Presbyterian question " (Straus) . 69 

Statement of 63-65 

Mack, Julian W. , vice president American Jewish Committee, letter to President . 253 

Magnes, J. L., letter to President 253 

"Man against the dollar " (Marshall) 58 

"Man ahead of the dollar. " Question of giving up 1 per cent of commerce in 

behalf of citizenship (Garner) 50-51 

Margolin, Giovanni J. , case of 212-216 

Marks, Harry, case of 207, 208 

Marshall, Louis: 

Address of, on Russia and American passport 266-272 

Address of, on "Russia and American passport, " referred to 256 

Attended conference at White House February 15, 1911 257 

Letter of, concerning State Department circulars 242-243 

Letter of, objecting to offensive circulars 241 

Letter to President 253 

Statements of 39-51, 58-62, 78-92, 279-285 

^lassachusetts, citizens of, favor abrogation (Murray) 100 

Massachusetts Legislature, resolutions of (Murray) 100 

Massacres of Jews in Russia, official notification of 223-227 

Massacres, letter of Minister Foster, describing 125 

Mass meeting. {See Carnegie Hall mass meeting.) 

May laws of ignative passed of 1882 (Marshall) 82 

Memorandum June 3, 1910; not printed 254 

To President Taft (executive committee, American Jewish Committee). . 254-255 

Methods for terminating treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 

Military laws, liability of naturalized citizens under 212 

Miller, Justice, United States Supreme Court quoted (Marshall) 44 



330 INDEX. 

Page. 

MiDimum tariff rates granted to Russia 252 

Missionaries. {See Discriminations.) 

Montana, resolution of legislature 258 

Moses, James G., case of 135 

Murray, Hon. Wm. F., Representative from Massachusetts, statement of 99-101 

Nathan, Marks, case of 207 

National Citizens' Committee: 

Carnegie mass meeting held under auspices of 5 

Favors abrogation of treaty, work of (Noland) 77 

National German-American Alliance, resolution of, favoring abrogation (Mar- 
shall) 79 

National Jewish Fraternal Congress: 

Membership nearly half a million, representing nine-tenths Jewish citizens 

(Sanders) 74 

In favor of Sulzer resolutions (Sanders) 74 

Naturalization no protection to Jew with passport (Dorf) 76 

Naturalization treaty, first question to be considered in making new treaty 

(Sulzberger) 244 

Naturalized citizens: 

Liability of, under military and expatriation laws 212 

Should be a treaty negotiated concerning those from Russia (Sulzberger). . 37 
Negotiations; 

Citizenship reflected upon by not closing (Straus) 68 

Congress authorized renewal of, on passport question (Goldfogle) 94 

Renewal, on passport question, under House resolution of Apr. 21, 1904. . . 220 

Those on passport question a joke (Dorf) 75 

Transfer of, from St. Petersburg to Washington recommended (American 

Jewish Committee) 254-255 

Nellany, Michael, capitalist, advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 

Nesselrode, Co^mt: 

Negotiated treaty of 1832, on part of Russia 239 

Treaty of 1832 negotiated on part of Russia by (Sulzberger) S3 

Nevada, resolution of legislature 258 

New treaty with Russia, what it should contain (Sulzberger) 245-247 

New York Evening Mail, series of articles in, referred to 258 

New York, resolution of legislature 258 

New York Times, article in, by Herman Bernstein, referred to (Marshall) 50 

Nolan, Bernard, secretary National Citizens' Committee, statement of 77 

Nonexpatriated Russians, if no treaty concerning, then there should be one {see 

also Art. 10, treaty of 1832) (Sulzberger) 37 

Nonreligious organizations. {See Religion.) 

Notice of abrogation, when effective (Marshall) 58 

Notice to American citizens contemplating return to Russia (Root) 240 

Notice to American Jews issued by State Department 212 

O 'Brien, Wm., president Boston Central Labor Union, statement of 100 

O'Gorman, Hon. James A., a Senator from New York, address of 12-13 

Order B'rith Abraham: 

Membership 74,000 (Dorf) 74 

Objects of, stated (Dorf) 74 

Pale of settlement: 

Condition of Jews living outside of 152 

Rights of Jews outside of, limited (Marshall) 81 

Panama Canal, suppose Russian steamer denied passage through (Schiff) 67 

Parsons, Hon. Herbert, of New York: 

' 'Abrogate now " 24 

Joint resolution introduced by 256 

Pleads for abrogation ^ - . - 257 

Parsons resolution, hearings before Committee on Foreign Affairs • 257, 272-294 

sport: 

American citizen holding, entitled to entrance into Russia (Goldfogle) 93 

Conditions under which obtained and used 212 

Copy of, received from State Department (Cutler) 56 

Denied because not visaed (Cutler) 55 

Dishonored by Russia on religious grounds (Goldfogle) 95 

Explanation of why viseed at London and in United States (Marshall) 58 

Grounds for refusal of Russian consul general to vise (Cutler) 52-54 



INDEX. 331 

Page. 
Passport — Continued. 

Of no value, notwithstanding agreement with Russia (Marshall) S3 

Visas, Austrian and Hungarian commercial travelers, stipulation concern- 
ing 260 

Vis6of, exception in favor of Jewish citizen if passage by Russian steamer. 244, 247 

Visaed by Russian consul at London; reasons (Kamaiky) 57 

Passport question: 

A "chestnut," always in same condition at end of every administration 

(Schiff) 67 

Arose in 1867 or 1868 (Marshall) 82 

Congress and people of United States aroused concerning (Marshall) 41 

In Congress, 1879-1909 304-320 

Involves not only extradition of criminals, but fundamental right of citi- 
zenship 259 

Public not acquainted with, until recently (Cutler) 54 

Recommendations of American Jewish committee to President Taft con- 
cerning - 254-255 

Renewal of negotiations under House resolution, April 21, 1907 220 

Reprint from American Jewish Yearbook 5672 (Appendix II) 239 

Scant consideration of, by State Department, since 1905 240 

Sincerity of Russian Government on (Sulzberger) 35-36 

Taft on 249-250 

Passports : 

Difficult of procuring by native and naturalized Jews in United States 

(Sulzberger) _ 36 

Expulsion from Russia of Jews holding foreign; correspondence 139, 149 

For Russia's steamships, circular of March 16, 1911 258 

Issued to Jews, refusal of Russian consul to vis6; correspondence 178-192 

Letter of Hon. Elihu Root concerning (Schiff) 66 

Necessary to be visaed (Goldfogle) 95 

Refusal to vis6 those of Jews ^Goldfogle) 93 

Russian commissions do nothing to recognize (Goldfogle) 94 

Penrose, Hon. Boise, a Senator from Pennsylvania, letter of 30 

People: 

American Jewish committee decides to appeal to 256 

Only redress through an appeal to 258 

Persecution of Jews, correspondence relating to ; 138 

Pinkos, Henry, case of 108-113,113-122,124,129 

Planks from party platforms, 1908, on protection of Americans abroad 248 

Platforms (1904), those of both parties promised redress (Sulzberger) 246 

Polish Jews, their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 

Political movement, nonpartisan (Harrison) 101-102 

Political parties, promised redress in 1904 (Sulzberger) 246 

Polk, President James K., requests power of Congress to terminate treaty 

(Marshall) 49 

Pouren case, referred to (Schiff) 66 

Precedent, Russia's action fvu-nishes, for other countries (Straus) 70 

Precedents as to power of President and Congress to terminate treaties (Mar- 
shall)... 41-50 

Precedents, attitude of Secretary Knox toward 254 

Presbyterian question, illustration (Straus) 69 

President of United States: 

Abrogation of treaties by Congress requested or suggested by (Marshall) ... 49 

Doubt as to power to abrogate treaty (Marshall) 45 

Negotiated proceedings terminating treaty of 1817 only case (Marshall) 48 

Power to abrogate a treaty discussed 41 

Power to abrogate treaty, ought he to have it, discussed 44 

Powers in connection with termination of treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 

Requested to renew negotiations on passport question 220 

Should report to Congress failure of negotiations (Dorf) 75 

President Taft, interview with, requested by American Jewish committee 253 

Property. {See Inheritances.) 

Prussia, treaty of 1828 with, how construed (Marshall) 91 

Queen Catharine issued ukase inviting Jews into Russia (Marshall) 81 

Rabbinist Jews, their rights in Russia (Eddy) 228 

Recommendations, executive committee, American Jewish committee, em- 
bodied in memorandum to President Taft 254 

Religion, (/See a?so Creed and religion.) 



332 INDEX. 

Religion: Page. 

American citizens interrogated regarding (Mc Adoo) 4 

Citizens classified by (Goldfogle) 93 

France recognized equality of; citizens of different beliefs (Elkus) 73 

No distinction on account of any treaty between France and Russia 261 

No distinction on account of any treaty between Austria-Hungary and 

Russia 260 

Nonreligious organizations' attitude toward abrogation (Marshall) 79 

Passport dishonored on religious grounds (Goldfogie) 95 

Passport not viseed on account of (Kamaiky) 57 

Statement of, required by applicant for vise (Cutler) 52 

Religious freedom, ukase of Czar of Russia, granting, except to Jews 222 

Religious inquisition, protest of United States against 239 

Republican platform of 1904, promised equal protection abroad for all citizens. 246 

Republican platform of 1908, plank on protection to Americans abroad 248 

Resolution of House of Representatives, April 21, 1904 220 

Resolution of Union of American Hebrew Congregations 256 

Resolutions adopted by Carnegie Hall mass meeting 5-6 

Revised Statutes of United States, sections 1999, 2000, 2001, cited (Marshall). . 59-60, 

92, 242, 277 
Rhode Island: 

First State to pass resolution for amelioration of conditions (Cutler) 54 

Resolution of legislature 258 

Riots : 

Anti-Jewish, correspondence relating to 138 

At Warsaw, account of 136 

In Russia, correspondence concerning 235-237 

Robert College, Constantinople, president of, referred to (Straus) 70 

Rockhill, Hon. W. W., Ambassador to Russia: 

Conference with 252 

Instructed to do all possible to settle passport question 252 

Conference with. May 25, 1910 254 

Returns to post 256 

Roosevelt, Theodore, President of United States: 

Correspondence with Secretary Root furnished (Sulzberger) 248 

Letter of Judge Mayer Sulzberger to, May 18, 1908 243 

Reference to correspondence with 252 

Root, Elihu, Secretary of State: 

Asks proof of exceptions favoring Jews sailing by Pvussian steamer 246 

Proof furnished (Sulzberger) 247 

Change of policy under 240 

Copy of notice to American citizens formerly subjects of Russia (Cutler)... 54 

Goldfogle resolution, emasculated at instance of 250 

Letter of, quoted (Schiff) 66 

Letter of, to Mr. Schiff 249 

Substitutes circular of January 25, 1908, for those of May 28, 1907 241 

Rosenstraus Bros., cases of (Marshall) 62 

Rosenstraus, H., case of 106-107, 129 

Resenstraus, Theodore and Herman, cases of, referred to 278 

Rosenwald, Julius, letter to President 253 

Russia- American Line of steamships: 

Circular, March 16, 1911 258 

Office of Imperial Russian consul in building of 258 

Russia's support of _. 258 

Russia and Austria-Hungary, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 

Russia and France, treaty of commerce and navigation between 260 

Russia and Germany, consular treaty between 259 

" Russia and the American passport," address of Louis Marshall on 256, 266, 272 

Russia : 

Abrogation of treaty would increase respect for Jews in (Dorf) , 75 

Ambassador Straus did not ask permission to enter (Straus) 71 

American people not hostile against (McAdoo) 4 

Applies rigid test to Americans seeking to enter (McAdoo) 4 

Attitude toward Jews altered after 1865 239 

Attitude toward Jews changed about 1867 or 1868 (Marshall) 81 

Began to make discriminations against Jews of United States about 40 years 

ago (Sulzberger) 32 



INDEX. 333 

Russia— Continued. Page. 

Can not be compelled to open its doors (Marshall) 50 

C'ondition of Jews in (Marshall) 50 

Difficult to understand who governs (Harrison) 102 

Discriminates against Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians (chairman) 65 

Disregarded plain treaty stipulations (McAdoo) 4 

Example of, imitated by Turkey (Straus) 69-70 

Excuse for excluding Jews, her argument (Marshall) 82 

Expatriated citizen, rights of (Sulzberger) .-•••■-. ^^ 

Failure to close negotiations with, reflects upon our citizenship (Straus)... 68 

Good country to be expatriated from (Sulzberger) 36 

Granted minimum tariff rates .--.-•- ^^^ 

If Americans other than Jews with passports were asked as to their religious 

beliefs by (Cooper, Marshall) .""... 51 

If treaty between United States and, provided for exclusion of Jews from 

Russia we could not complain (Marshall) 84 

Interprets treaty of 1832 against Jews, clergymen, etc. (Straus) 68 

Its system of underground information (Harrison) 103 

Jews in, their number, classes, laws governing, etc. (Spencer Eddy) 228-235 

Laws of, relative to foreign Jews 126-128 

Letter and spirit of treaty of 1832 violated by 259 

Military and expatriation laws, liability under 212 

No such thing as public opinion in (Harrison) 102 

Not anxious for quarrel (Sulzberger) 38 

Revision of treaty of 1832 suggested to (Knox) 254 

Status of American Jews in, if treaty abrogated (Marshall) 80 

The most she can claim (Sulzberger) -. 3 

Treaty of 1832 between, and United States, joint resolution to terminate. . 637 

Two million Americans insulted by, daily (Silverman) 65 

LTnited States does not want and ought not to regulate interior affairs of 

(Sulzberger) _. 34 

Would have right to prohibit immigration of Jews into Russia (Marshall). . 84 

Russian ambassador, refusal to "vdse passports (Goldfogle) 93 

Russian border, "No thoroughfare" to Americans of Jewish parentage (Schiff). 67 
Russian Embassv, the only one piece of Russian sovereignty in United States 

^ (Sulzberger) . .' 36 

Russian censorship (Harrison) 103 

Russian consul: 

Office of, in building of Russia-American Line of steamships 258 

Will vise passports of Jewish applicants taking passage on Russian steamer. 244, 247 
Russian consul general in New York: 

Asks regarding religion of applicants for passports (McAdoo) 4 

Difficulties in obtaining vise from (Cutler) 52-53 

Secretary Root asks proof that he favors Jews sailing by Russian steamer. . 246 

Proof furnished (Sulzberger) 247 

Russian diplomacy, United States tool of (Harrison) 101 

Russian feeling toward Jews, effect of abrogation of treaty on (Marshall) 58 

Russian law on Jewish divorces 219 

Russian steamer to Libau: 

Jewish citizens favored if sailing by 244, 247 

Jews sailing on, may have passports viseed — department wants proof 246 

Proof furnished (Sulzberger) 247 

Russian territory, consul general's office, New York, not (Sulzberger) 36 

Russian volunteer fleet 258 

Russians: 

Circular on passports for 258 

Like to stand well in society (Sulzberger) 38 

Russophile policy, said to have been that of State Department since 1905 240 

Ryan, John T.: 

Address of 98 

Advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 

Sanders, Judge Leon, statement of 73-74 

Schiff, Hon. Jacob H.: 

Statement of 66-67 

Attended conference with President and others May 25, 1910 254 

Attended conference at White House February 15, 1911 257 

Interview \vith President 254 

Judge Taft's promise to 249 



334 INDEX. 

Schiff, Hon. Jacob H. — Continued. Page. 

Letter to President 253 

Memorandum to President Taft 255 

Secretary Root's letter to 249-250 

Schlippenbacli, Baron, requires statement of religion by applicant for vise 

(Cutler) _. 52 

Scnurman, Dr. Jacob Gould, President Cornell University, address of 17-21 

Secretaries of State: 

Adhered to position of Blaine and Cleveland until 1905 240 

Attention of all called to United States statutes on expatriation (Marshall). 60 
Senate: 

No right alone to abrogate a treaty (Marshall) 49 

Powers in connection with termination of treaties (Friedenwald) 295-303 

Senate resolution authorizing President to give notice of termination of treaty 

(Marshall) 49 

Sharp, Hon. Wm. G., a Representative fi'om Ohio, address of. . 24-26, 61, 62, 72, 76, 94 

Silverman, Rev. Joseph, statement of 65 

Smith, Hon. Charles B., RepresentatiA^e from New York, statement of 96-99 

Smith, Hon. Rufus B.: 

Address of, refen'ed to 258 

Paper by, on United States passport and Russia 288-294 

Smith, Rev. H. Lester, advocated abrogation (Smith) 97 

State Department: 

Ambassadors urged by, to change Russia's attitude (Goldfogle) 93-94 

Attention called to Russia's violation of expatriation law (Marshall) 59-60 

Change of policy since 1905 240 

State Department Circular May 28, 1907 (Marshall) (see also Circular) 59 

State Department Circular: 

May 28, 1907 240 

January 25, 1908, substituted for offensive circulars 241 

Existence of, not known for six months 240 

State Department, negotiations by, with Russia unavailing, reasons (Marshall). 40 

State legislatures, resolutions of, favoring abrogation - 258 

States, list of, asking for abrogation of treaty of 1832 (Cutler) 54 

Statistics of commerce between United States and Russia (Marshall) 87 

Stein, Philip, attended White House conference 257 

Straus, Hon. Oscar S.: 

Statement of '- -. 67-73 

American ambassador to Turkey recites experiences 72 

Sobel, Isador, letter to President 253 

Solomons, A. S., reference to lOJ 

Sulzberger, Cyrus L. , letter to President 253 

Sulzberger, Hon. Mayer, president judge of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, 
Philadelphia: 

Statement of 31-39 

Attended conference with President and others May 25, 1910 254 

Conferred with Ambassador Rockhill 252 

Interview with President 254 

Letter of June 17, 1908, to Secretary Root. ^^^"^^J 

Letter of President's secretary to 253 

Letter to Judge Taft ^^^"^S 

Letter to President 253 

Letter to Roosevelt, referred to Secretary Root 246 

Memorandum to President Taft •.-■-; -, ^^^ 

President, American Jewish Committee, recommends termination of 

treaty of 1832 -. ^^^'Itl 

Reply of Secretary Knox to letter of 253 

Second letter to President Roosevelt June 30, 1908 248 

Sulzer, Hon. William (a Representative from New York): 

Joint resolution introduced by, for termination of treaty of 1832 between 

United States and Russia - .- '^ 

Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs, energetic advocate of abrogation. . 257 

Questions asked by - 72, 75, 76 

Sulzer resolution: _„ 

April 6, 1911 -■-- ^5; 

To abrogate treaty of 1832 ^^^ 

Committee justified in reporting (Smith") ^^ 

Principles prompting introduction (Murray) -^^" 



INDEX. 335 

Sumner, Charles, resolution b^ , on power to abrogate treaties referred to (Mar- Page, 

shall) -■_ .- ^- 49 

Switzerland, discriminated against some of its cantons (Elkus) 73 

Taft, Wm. H., President of United States: 

Conference with. May 25, 1910 254 

Inaugural address, 1909 250 

Instructed Ambassador Rockhill to do all possible to settle passport ques- 
tion 252 

Interview of Judge Sulzberger and Mr. Schiff with 254 

Letter of Executive Committee American Jewish Committee, to 252-253 

Memorandum to, embodying remarks at conference May 25, 1910 254 

Resolution of Union of American Hebrew Congregations, presented to 256 

Speeches on passport question 250 

Passport question treated in letter accepting presidential nomination 249 

Promises Mr. Schiff, if elected, to give passport question special attention. 249 

Republican candidate for President, letter of Mayer Sulzberger to 248-249 

Temple Beth El mass meeting held at Buffalo (Smith) 96 

Termination. (See also Treaty of 1832.) 

Termination of treaty of 1832, delay in, emphasizes American acquiescence in 

Russia's interpretation (Straus) 68 

Travel and sojourn provisions. (See Treaty of 1832.) 

Townsend, E. W., a Representative from New Jersey, question asked by 65, 80 

Treaties : 

Abrogation by Congress requested or suggested by President, instances of 

(Marshall) ' 49 

Abrogation of, power to abrogate discussed 41-50 

Abrogated by act of Congress (Marshall) 46-47 

Brief on termination of (Friedenwald) 295-303 

Can not afford to have with any power unless every American receiA'es full 

benefit and protection of (McAdoo) 4 

How terminated (Friedenwald) 295 

of France, Belgium, and Chile, United States did not hesitate to denounce 

(Harrison) ] 03 

Provisions in for observance of law, an ordinary term (Marshall) 83 

Terminated in Congress by notice given in accordance with the terms of 

the treaty (Marshall) 46 

Why made (Sulzberger) 34 

Treaty: 

No understanding can be imputed to it that is not written in it (Sulzberger) . 34 
(See also Agreement.) 

Treaty of commerce and navigation : 

Between Austria-Hungary and Russia 260 

Between France and Russia 260 

Treaty with Russia (new): 

What it should contain (Sulzberger) 245, 247 

When written should express principle embodied in statutes (Marshall) . . 92 

Treaty of 1832: 

Abrogation best solution of problem (Straus) 72 

Antiquated relic of the past (Marshall) 92 

Arguments for abrogation of, presented anew 257 

Chronological history of negotiations 239 

Com-mercial advantages not all on side of United States (Sulzberger) 37-38 

Construed by "bureaucracy" of Russia as giving right to discriminate 

(Straus) 68 

Culberson resolution to abrogate 257 

Delay in terminating emphasizes American acquiescence in Russia's 

interpretation (Straus) 68 

Diplomatic correspondence shows Russia's violation of treaty for 40 years 

without remedy (Marshall) 40 

Effect of abrogation upon commerce discussed (Sulzberger) 38 

Financial interests' opposition to abrogation, no knowledge of (Straus) 72 

Great advance in relations between Russia and United States (Sulzberger) . 32 

Hearings on Parsons resolution to terminate 272-294 

If abrogated, modern treaty probably result (Marshall) 80 

' ' Inhabitant " of the United States entitled to benefit of (Sulzberger) 35 

Interpretation of first and tenth sections (Sulzberger) 32-33 

Interpretation of article 1, no question arose over until 1865 239 

19831—11 22 



336 INDEX. 

Treaty of 1832— Continued. 

Jewish population small when negotiated (Sulzberger) 32 

Joint resolution to terminate (Parsons) 256 

Joint resolution to terminate (Sulzer) 3 

Judge Sulzberger recommends its termination 243, 247 

Letter and spirit of, violated by Russia ' 259 

Must be considered as between two parties (Marshall) 82 

Must be terminated (Goldfogle) 95 

No question of expatriation arose when made (Sulzberger) 37 

Not a word in, as to religious beliefs (Sulzberger) " 32 

Notice of abrogation ; when effective (Marshall) 58 

Not in conflict with fundamental principles (Straus) 67-68 

Only two sections bearing on passport question (Sulzberger) 32 

Parsons resolution to abrogate, hearings on 257 

Relations between United States and Russia growing out of an old ques- 
tion (Marshall) 39 

Relations of the powers necessary to an understanding of (Sulzberger) 32-34 

Resolutions to terminate 257 

Russia's duty under (Goldfogle) 93 

Russia's Interpretation of (Straus) 68 

State Department suggests advisability of revising ( Knox) 254 

State legislatures favoring abrogation of 258 

Travel and sojourn provisions similar to extradition provisions treaty of 

1842 with Great Britain 259 

Treaty of 1842. (See Great Britain.) 

Treaty of 1887, termination recommended (Sulzberger) 244, 247 

Turkey: 

American educators and missionaries protected in (Straus) '. 70 

Discriminations by (Elkus) 73 

Union of the American-Hebrew Congregations: 

Address of Louis Marshall to, referred to 256 

Letter of Secretary of State concerning Jews in Russia 107-108 

Represented at White House conference , 257 

Resolution of ' 256 

United States: 

Has strictly observed treaty obligations (Mc Adoo) 4 

More necessary to Russia than Russia is to them (Curley, Marshall) 50 

Protests against discrimination (McAdooj 4 

Russian embassy only Russian piece of sovereignty in (Sulzberger) 36 

Treaty relations with Russia cai^ stand severance of (Marshall) 92 

Views on expatriation same toward Russia as other countries (Marshall) ... 92 

Passport and Russia, paper on (Smith) 288-294 

Vis6 {see also Passports) : 

Conditions under which granted (Goldfogle) 95 

Difficulties in obtaining, from Russian consul general (Cutler) 52-53 

Form of application for (Cutler) .■ 52 

Necessary in all cases (Goldfogle j 95 

No trouble to obtain, from Russian consul at New York if passage by Rus- 
sian steamer 244, 247 

Refusal of Russian consul to vis6 passports of Jews, correspondence 178-192 

Jews refused, by Russian consul general in New York (McAdoo) 4 

Real requirement to obtain, from Russian consul 258 

Waix, Maior, case of 181-182 

Waldenberg, D . , case of 143 

Waldenberg, David and Jacob, cases of 161-162 

Warsaw, account of riots at 136 

Washington, resolution of legislature 258 

Wilczynski, Marx, case of 113-122, 124 

White, Hon. Andrew D., former ambassador to Russia, president of the National 
Citizens' Committee: 

Address of _ 7-12 

Letter of, concerning condition of Jews in Russia 169-176 

Wilson, Gov. Woodrow, of New Jersey, address of 15 

Wolf, Simon: 

Attended White House conference, February 15, 1911 257 

Mentioned (Marshall) 79 

Reference to 1*^7 

o 



